Sternberg t/a Homeworthy Inspection Services v Bielby

[2013] QCAT 103

CITATION: Sternberg t/a Homeworthy Inspection Services v  Bielby [2013] QCAT 103

PARTIES:	Robert James Sternberg t/as Homeworthy Inspection Services (Applicant)
V
Ian David Bielby (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: BDL289-12

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Kate Buxton, Member

DELIVERED ON: 7 March 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.     This application is transferred to the Minor Civil Dispute List (Brisbane Registry).

2.     This application is to be listed for hearing at a date to be fixed by the Registry not before 28 March 2013.

3.     Any further material on which the parties intend to rely be filed by 28 March 2013.

4.     The Direction hearing scheduled for 13 March 2013 is vacated.

CATCHWORDS:

Jurisdiction of Tribunal – commercial building dispute – where applicant and respondent are “traders” – matter to be heard and determined as a minor civil dispute

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, Schedule 3

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. Following a compulsory conference in this commercial building dispute, which took place on 17 December 2012, directions were made that the parties ought file submissions as to why QCAT has jurisdiction to hear this application.  I have taken into account the applicant’s submissions filed 29 January 2013 and the respondent’s submissions filed 15 February 2013.

2. The applicant continues to assert his entitlement to have this matter determined as a commercial building dispute and this entitlement is rejected by the respondent. However, the applicant asserts, and the respondent concedes, that the parties each fall within the definition of “trader” under schedule 3 of the QCAT Act.[1]

   [1]        Applicant submissions filed 29 January 2013 paragraph 1, page 2.  Respondents          submissions filed 15 February 2013 paragraph 1, page 2.

3. If both parties are “traders” as defined in the schedule to the QCAT Act, then this unliquidated contract dispute can properly be characterised as a “minor civil dispute” within QCAT’s jurisdiction, being a claim arising out of a contract between 2 traders that is a claim for payment of a sum of money below the prescribed amount of $25,000.00.

4. I accept the respondents submission that this claim cannot be pursued as a “building dispute”.  This is not a dispute about the way in which reviewable building work was carried out but, rather, a dispute as to who should pay for that work.  It is not a dispute between the homeowner and the person who carried out such work.  It is therefore outside the definition of a building dispute.

5. Being outside the definition of a building dispute in the building list, but within the Minor Civil Disputes jurisdiction of QCAT, the proper course is to transfer this matter to the Minor Civil Disputes list. Hearing dates will be notified to the parties by the Registry. This course preserves the parties’ rights in relation to the application as filed and provides an economical and quick path to hearing, consistent with the objects of the QCAT Act.