Sunstate Design & Construct Pty Ltd v Townview Holdings Pty Ltd
[2012] QCATA 265
•21 December 2012
| CITATION: | Sunstate Design & Construct Pty Ltd v Townview Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 265 |
| PARTIES: | Sunstate Design & Construct Pty Ltd (Appellant) |
| v | |
| Townview Holdings Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL194-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Hon Kerry Cullinane AM QC, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 21 December 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal is allowed. 3. The order of 25 May 2012 is set aside to the extent of substituting the sum of $25,000.00 plus $255.00 for the sum of $30,255.00. 4. The appeal is otherwise dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where Respondent brought a minor debt claim – where Tribunal ordered payment by the Appellant to the Respondent of the prescribed amount plus interest – whether the Tribunal was limited to making an award that did not exceed the prescribed amount Property Law Act 1974, s 199 |
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
The appellant seeks leave to appeal pursuant to s 142 of the QCAT Act against a determination made in a minor civil dispute, which was delivered on the 25th day of May 2012. The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay the respondent the sum of $25,000.00, together with interest in the sum of $5,000.00, plus a filing fee of $255.00.
Section 142(3)(a)(i) of the QCAT Act requires the grant of leave to appeal in the case of a challenge to a decision in a minor civil dispute.
In order for an application for leave to be made out it will generally require that some general principle or question arises or that the grant of leave to appeal is required to prevent an injustice.
The claim arose out of a contract to carry out certain works in the construction of an early learning centre in Western Australia. The head contractor was Ri-con Construction Pty Ltd (‘RC’). This company contracted with the appellant Sunstate Design and Construct Pty Ltd (‘SS’) which in turn entered into a contract with a sub-contractor (Corrosion Control Technology Pty Ltd (‘CCT’).
The respondent Townview Holding Pty Ltd (‘TVH’) and CCT have a common sole director.
It was the respondent’s case that certain variation works and grouting were carried out by CCT, and that the right to recover the costs of these was assigned by the common director (Mr Kettle) to TVH.
The claim is for the value of the works the subject of the alleged assignment. Kettle claimed that this arrangement was made at the request of the appellant.
The respondent’s invoice no. 1256 dated 14 May 2010 related to this work.
The appellant has been paid by the head contractor for this work.
How the sum claimed was calculated was something the Tribunal found problematic, and it is fair to say that the sole director was not able to be specific about this. Nonetheless the Tribunal was satisfied that there was adequate evidence to support the respondent’s claim. I should add that there was nothing to suggest that the appellant raised any complaint about the invoice or, for that matter, generally. The position taken by the appellant before the Tribunal was that (subject to an issue about a licence) it would not object to paying if they could get a proper understanding of the calculation of the claim.
No allegation of overcharging was made. There was an email dated 10 May 2010 which the respondent relied upon as evidencing some discussions between the parties about the cost of the work.
The application for leave to appeal
Three matters are raised in support of the application for a grant of leave to appeal.
The first is that there was no assignment of the debt that satisfied the requirements of s 199 of the Property Law Act 1974. More specifically it was said that there was no notice in writing to the debtor.
It is to be noted that such a claim was not made in the proceedings. In its findings the Tribunal said that the entitlement of the respondent (rather than CCT) to claim on the invoice was not disputed.
Had such a claim been raised it is at least conceivable that the respondent could have met it by one or more arguments. On the respondent’s case the circumstances were that the making of the claim by the respondent was at the request of the appellant. The invoice was issued by Mr Kettle – the sole director of the respondent and CCT.
I do not think that the appellant should now be allowed to raise this matter.
The second matter concerns the absence of a licence. The appellant’s response referred to the fact that the respondent did not have a licence. The appellant says that the real issue is whether SS held an appropriate licence.
The matter was disposed of by the Tribunal on the basis of s 42(5A) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. There was evidence that SS held a licence and nothing to suggest that it did not cover this type of work.
Section 45(5A) provides that an unlicensed person who carries out work for a licensed contractor will not be prevented from recovering in respect of that work.
The respondent is entitled to recover in respect of the work carried out by CCT and invoiced by the respondent.
The argument on this subject assumed that the prohibition contained in s 42(3) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 applied to work performed in another state.
The final matter raised concerned the award of the Tribunal of a sum that exceeded the prescribed amount namely $25,000.00.
The Tribunal awarded interest under s 14 of the QCAT Act. The invoice provided for the payment of interest, but the order it seems was made under s 14.
In my view the Tribunal was limited to making an award that, in total, did not exceed the prescribed amount.
Minor civil dispute is defined in Schedule 3 as: “a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money with or without interest of up to the prescribed amount.”
The order made falls within s 13(2) of the QCAT Act and is prohibited by s 13(3)(a).
I would grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal to the extent of reducing the judgment to $25,000.00 plus a filing fee of $255.00.
Order
I order that:
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. The appeal is allowed.
3. The order of 25 May 2012 is set aside to the extent of substituting the sum of $25,000.00 plus $255.00 for the sum of $30,255.00.
4. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
0
0
0