Solahart Mackay & Ors v Summers

[2013] QCATA 113

CITATION: Solahart Mackay & Ors v Summers [2013] QCATA 113

PARTIES:	Solahart Mackay and Valet Mackay and Michael De Pinto (Applicants/Appellants)
v
Troy Andrew Summers (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL311-12

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice Alan Wilson, President

DELIVERED ON: 17 April 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    Leave to appeal granted.

2.    Allow the appeal, and set aside the decision of the Tribunal of 20 August 2012.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – JURISDICTION – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – where respondent was employed by applicant – where respondent made claim for outstanding bonuses and commissions under quasi-contract – where Magistrate ordered applicant pay respondent fixed sum – where applicant seeks to appeal that decision – where claim was for fair recompense for work and labour done – whether claim is for a debt or liquidated demand of money – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 12(4)(a), s 13(1), s 142(3)(a)(i), Schedule 3

Alexander v Ajax Insurance Co Ltd (1956) VLR 436, followed
J F Hodge Pty Ltd v Brown [2013] QCATA 036, cited
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221, cited
Spain v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd (1923) 32 CLR 138, followed
White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor (1962) AC 413, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (‘QCAT Act’).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This matter began in the Minor Civil Disputes (‘MCD) jurisdiction of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) as a dispute between Troy Summers and his former employer(s) about bonuses or commission monies which, he said, were owed to him. The matter was complicated because of uncertainty about the identity of the employer(s) and, as is not uncommon in this jurisdiction, questions about the identity of parties where individuals, corporations and business names are involved.

2. Mr Summers alleged that he had been employed by Michael De Pinto of De Pinto Agencies (or, elsewhere, De Pinto Agencies Pty Ltd). As his submissions in the MCD proceedings show he was also aware, however, that his employment involved some association with businesses called Valet Mackay and Solahart Mackay and, also, a company called Island Refrigeration & Airconditioning Pty Ltd. It seems to have been common ground that Mr Summers worked for one, or some, or all of these entities at various times in 2010, and 2011.

3. For reasons which were not made entirely clear in the MCD proceedings Mr Summers ceased that employment in 2011. In December 2011, he began proceedings in the Tribunal’s MCD jurisdiction seeking orders against Mr De Pinto and De Pinto Agencies Pty Ltd claiming $19,317.72 for outstanding bonuses and commissions arising, he alleged, by virtue of the terms of his contract of employment with that company.

4. Mr De Pinto and the…