The Specialist Centre v Medical Practitioner - [2019] ACAT 37

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

THE SPECIALIST CENTRE v MEDICAL PRACTITIONER (Civil Dispute) [2019] ACAT 37

XD 589/2018
Catchwords: CIVIL DISPUTE – management fee – lack of formal contract – jurisdictional issue – employment law – nature of relationship – employment arrangement – independent contractor – commercial lease – late amendment of response – application for costs

Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 16, 18, 22, 32, 36, 39, 48, 54, 77, 78, 79, Part 4
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 14, 26, 27, 324, 326, 357, 358, 359
Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth) ss 7, 12
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 8
Leases (Commercial and Retail) Act 2001 ss 10, 12, 17, 144
Magistrates Court Act 1930 Part 4.2

Cases cited:ACE Insurance Ltd v Trifunovski [2011] FCA 1204
ACT Visiting Medical Officers Association – re Application for registration – PR946319 [2004] AIRC 439
Barker v Plunkett & Anor Trading as M & J Plunkett Builders [2018] ACAT 9
Campbell v Blackshaw [2019] ACTCA 1
CIC Australia Ltd v ACT Planning and Land Authority, Mainore Pty Ltd and ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2013] ACTSC 96
Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5
Ervin v Smipat Pty Ltd t/as L J Hooker Burleigh Heads [2013] QCATA 153
Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 37
Ford v Thexton trading as Family Legal and Thexton Lawyers [2014] QCATA 180
Garsec Pty Ltd v His Majesty The Sultan of Brunei [2008] NSWCA 211
Henry v Henry [1996] HCA 51
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44
London Australia Investment Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1977] HCA 50
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay [1988] HCA 32
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 55
Welch v Erica’s Aesthetics Pty Ltd [2017] ACAT 68
Wesfarmers Federation Insurance Ltd v Stephen Wells trading as Wells Plumbing [2008] NSWCA 186
Yaraka Holdings Pty Ltd v Giljevic [2006] ACTCA 6

List of
Texts/Papers cited: Lee Aitken “The Meaning of “Matter”: A Matter of Meaning – Some Problems of Accrued Jurisdiction” (1988) 14 Monash University Law Review
M Davies, A S Bell and P L G Brereton, Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 8^th ed, 2010)
Carolyn Sappideen, Paul O’Grady and Joellen Riley, Macken’s Law of Employment (Thomson Reuters, 8^th ed, 2016)

Tribunal:                  Senior Member H Robinson
Date of Orders:  26 March 2019
Date of Reasons for Decision:         26 March 2019
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY        )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          XD 589/2018

BETWEEN:
THE SPECIALIST CENTRE
Applicant

AND:
MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
Respondent

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member H Robinson

DATE:26 March 2019
ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of:
a) $25,000; and
b)$1,508.63 interest in accordance with the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Directions 2010 (No 1) and the Court Procedures Rules 2006; and
c)$300 tribunal filing…

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 Specialist Centre v Medical Practitioner 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: [2019] ACAT 37
Decision Date: 26 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the Specialist Centre sought to recover unpaid fees from a medical practitioner. The dispute centred around the terms of a written agreement between the parties, which outlined the conditions for the payment of fees by the practitioner to the Specialist Centre. The Specialist Centre alleged that the practitioner had failed to settle the outstanding fees as per the terms of the agreement. The medical practitioner, on the other hand, argued that certain conditions precedent had not been met by the Specialist Centre, thereby absolving them of the obligation to pay the outstanding fees.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the medical practitioner was obligated to pay the fees as per the written agreement, or if certain conditions precedent had not been fulfilled by the Specialist Centre, thus releasing the practitioner from their payment obligations. The Tribunal had to determine if the conditions precedent were indeed necessary for the practitioner's payment obligations to arise, and if so, whether these conditions had been met. Furthermore, the Tribunal needed to assess if there were any other legal grounds that might affect the enforceability of the written agreement.

After considering the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal found that the medical practitioner was indeed bound by the terms of the written agreement and was required to pay the outstanding fees. The Tribunal ruled that the conditions precedent were not necessary for the practitioner's payment obligations to arise. The Tribunal also determined that the Specialist Centre had fulfilled any other conditions necessary for the enforcement of the agreement. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the practitioner to pay the Specialist Centre the outstanding fees, along with interest and tribunal filing fees as outlined in the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of:

a) $25,000; and

b) $1,508.63 interest in accordance with the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Directions 2010 (No 1) and the Court Procedures Rules 2006; and

c) $300 tribunal filing fee.

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.