The Raiders Pty Ltd v Punton - [2020] QCAT 522

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

The Raiders Pty Ltd v Punton & Anor [2020] QCAT 522

PARTIES: THE RAIDERS PTY LTD

(applicant)

v

ALISTER PUNTON

(first respondent)

SHANNON LEE
(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO60862-19

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 December 2020

HEARING DATE:

18 September 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Gaffney

ORDERS:
1. Alister Punton is to pay to the Applicant the amount of $14,000.

2. There is no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:
GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY – CONTRACT OF GUARANTEE – where the applicant contracted with respondents’ company for the provision of services for the implementation of customer relationship management software – where the respondents were alleged to have executed a personal guarantee – whether the first respondent executed the guarantee – whether there were amounts ‘due and payable’ by the company under the contract which could be recovered under the guarantee, where payment terms under the contract were unilaterally varied – whether payment under the contract was dependent on performance – where defective performance alleged – whether the contract was terminated.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28(3)(c), s 93, s 100, s 102, Sch 3.

Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd v Gardiner (2008) 238 CLR 570

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 227

Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640

Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine (2007) 233 CLR 115

Owen v Menzies [2013] 2 Qd R 327

APPEARANCES:

Applicant:

Self-represented by Travis White and Hannah Brace

Respondents:

No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

On 16 October 2019 the applicant (‘Neighbourhood’) filed an ‘Application for minor civil dispute – minor debt’ in Form 3 (‘the Application’). It claims the amount of $24,000 plus the filing fee, service fee and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (‘ASIC’) search fee, aggregating to $24,963.20.
The Application was heard on 18 September 2020. There was no appearance by the respondents. Travis White, Managing Director of the applicant (‘Mr White’), and Hannah Brace (‘Ms Brace’) appeared for the applicant, and were sworn in. The claim against the second respondent (‘Mr Lee’) was withdrawn at the hearing.
I was satisfied that the first respondent (‘Mr Punton’) had been served with the Application and Notice of Hearing, based on the certificate of service, the affidavit of service and the fact that Mr Punton filed a Response after having been served. I proceeded in his absence under section 93 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the QCAT Act’).

The Application

The basis of the claim is described in the Application as follows:
We conducted work with Storylines to assist them with the implementation of Marketing and sales software Hubspot. Several attempts to gain payment were made, we were told that investor money still had not arrived which is something we found out post signing the contract. They have provided documents…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Raiders Pty Ltd v Punton and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] QCAT 522
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Raiders Pty Ltd brought an action against Alister Punton for the recovery of monies due under a personal guarantee. The Raiders Pty Ltd had entered into a contract with Storylines Inc for the implementation of customer relationship management software, which required payment to be made on a monthly basis. Mr Punton signed a personal guarantee in respect of the contract. When payment was not made according to an agreed schedule, The Raiders Pty Ltd suspended the performance of the contract, and subsequently Storylines Inc removed its staff from the project, preventing further work. The Raiders Pty Ltd brought an action under the guarantee. The application was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which found that the contract had not been terminated by either party, and that Storylines Inc had wrongfully terminated the contract. The Tribunal found that the amount due to The Raiders Pty Ltd was $14,000, and ordered Mr Punton to pay that amount. There was no order as to costs.

Orders