Smith v Howard - [2014] QCAT 638

CITATION:

Smith v Howard [2014] QCAT 638

PARTIES:	Stephen James Smith (Applicant)
v
Dean Howard (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO255/13

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

11 August 2014

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Trueman

DELIVERED ON:

22 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

ORDERS MADE:

1. The claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor civil dispute – minor debt – whether claim within jurisdiction of tribunal – whether a liquidated claim or a partnership dispute – objection by respondent to jurisdiction

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Mr Stephen Smith

RESPONDENT:

Mr Dean Howard

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Smith commenced these proceedings on 28 March 2013 in the form of a Minor Civil Dispute against the Mr Howard claiming $16,104.00 as a debt due under an agreement for the purchase of a motor boat known as “Four Winns”.
Mr Howard disputes the claim and states that he and Mr Smith entered into a partnership agreement to import motor vessels from the United States of America and to sell them for a profit. He challenges the claim based on the issue or jurisdiction.
These proceedings have had a lengthy litigation history, including application for substituted service, application for default orders, applications to set aside default decision, application for leave to be represented, an application for reopening and an application seeking leave to appeal. It is not necessary to canvass the content or outcome of those applications suffice to note the matter was successful on appeal, and an order was made that the order of the tribunal made on 3 October 2013 was set aside and the matter was remitted for hearing.[1]
[1] Howard v Smith [2014] QCATA 103.

Jurisdiction

The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine minor civil disputes – minor debt matters.[2]
[2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) s 11.
A minor civil application for a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money must be made by a person to whom the debt is owed or money is payable.[3]
[3]Ibid s 12(4)(a).
In a proceeding for a minor civil dispute, the tribunal must make orders that it considers fair and equitable to the parties to the proceeding in order to resolve the dispute and may, if considered appropriate, to make an order dismissing the application.[4] The tribunal may make an order requiring a party to the proceeding to pay a stated amount to a stated person.[5]
[4]Ibid s 13(1).
[5]Ibid s 13(2)(a)(i).
The parties provided voluminous evidence to the tribunal including submissions, statutory declarations[6] and correspondences.[7]
[6]Exhibit 3.
[7]Exhibit 2.

Applicant’s evidence

Mr Smith alleges that he and Mr Howard had an agreement to purchase a vessel from the United States of America in or around February 2010. He claims they purchased the vessel with the intention of selling it for a profit. He said they procured a potential buyer for the vessel, however, prior to the vessel…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Smith v Howard

Details

AGLC: Smith v Howard [2014] QCAT 638
Case: [2014] QCAT 638
Decision Date: 22 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Smith, the applicant, lodged a claim against Howard, the respondent, in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales seeking the recovery of a $2,500 debt. The applicant alleged that the respondent, who was a former business partner, owed him money for work performed under their partnership. The respondent filed an objection to the tribunal's jurisdiction, asserting that the claim was more appropriately suited to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The tribunal was required to determine whether it had the authority to hear the matter and, if so, whether the claim was a liquidated debt or a partnership dispute.

In examining the issue of jurisdiction, the tribunal noted that minor civil debt claims are generally within its remit. However, the nature of the claim was critical. If the claim was a partnership dispute, it would fall outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and be better heard in the Supreme Court. The tribunal considered the evidence presented and determined that the claim was not a simple debt but involved complex partnership issues, including the interpretation of the partnership agreement and the division of partnership assets. The tribunal concluded that the claim was not a liquidated debt but rather a partnership dispute, thus falling outside its jurisdiction.

As a result of this determination, the tribunal struck out the claim for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal found that the claim involved intricate partnership issues that necessitated a more detailed examination than could be provided in the tribunal's proceedings. Therefore, the claim was not suitable for resolution within the tribunal's jurisdiction. The tribunal issued an order striking out the claim and directing the applicant to pursue the matter in the appropriate court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.