QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Varsity Electrical Pty Ltd v SEQ Electronics and Entrance Systems Pty Ltd ATF SEQ Electronics Trust [2020] QCATA 136
PARTIES: VARSITY ELECTRICAL PTY LTD (applicant/appellant)
v
SEQ ELECTRONICS AND ENTRANCE SYSTEMS PTY LTD ATF SEQ ELECTRONICS TRUST (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL323-19
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:
MCDO 51300-19 Southport
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
21 September 2020
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Howe
ORDERS:
Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – where the applicant brought minor debt proceedings to recover money due for work done – where the minor debt application was served at the registered office of the respondent corporation noted in ASIC records – where the company’s registered address had changed without the change being advised to ASIC – where a default decision was entered on failure to file a response – where the respondent to the minor debt claim applied to set aside the default decision – where the application to set aside was refused – where the respondent appealed the refusal
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3)(a)(i)
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Self-represented by S McCormick
Respondent:
Self-represented
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant (‘Varsity’) engaged the respondent (‘SEQ’) to provide electronic entry systems at a property and were subsequently charged for the work done and also for travelling time for a worker.
The charges totalled $13,564.
Varsity refused to pay. SEQ commenced proceedings in the Tribunal to recover that sum as a minor debt due and owing.
SEQ served Varsity with the minor debt application by post to the registered office of Varsity.
Varsity paid $2,305.19 but did not pay the balance.
Varsity failed to file a response to the claim within the 28 days allowed.
SEQ obtained default judgment for the balance outstanding of $11,259.47 plus allowable costs on 30 October 2019.
On 4 November 2019 Varsity applied to set aside the default decision. That application came before an Adjudicator for determination on 11 November 2019. The Adjudicator refused the application.
Varsity seeks leave to appeal that decision.
Given this is an appeal from a decision made in the Tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction, leave to appeal must first be obtained. If leave is granted then the appeal may proceed.[1]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142(3)(a)(i).
Leave to appeal will usually only be granted where an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the appellant and where there is a reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected.[2]
Varsity seeks to appeal on the basis it was not…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Varsity Electrical Pty Ltd v SEQ Electronics and Entrance Sy... 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] QCATA 136
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's application to set aside the default decision could be successful, given the incorrect service address. The court had to determine whether the respondent's failure to respond was due to the service at the incorrect address, and whether this justified setting aside the default decision. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the respondent had a valid basis for an appeal against the refusal to set aside the default decision.
The court found that the respondent's application to set aside the default decision was not justified, as the respondent's failure to respond was not attributable to the incorrect service address. The court also considered that the applicant had taken reasonable steps to ensure the application was served at the correct address, as per the ASIC records. Consequently, the court refused the respondent's application to set aside the default decision, and subsequently denied the appeal against that refusal.
As a result of the court's decision, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The default decision in favour of the applicant remained in place, and the respondent was not granted an opportunity to set aside that decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal refused.
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.