Webb v Barnes
[2017] QCATA 108
•12 October 2017
CITATION: | Webb v Barnes [2017] QCATA 108 |
PARTIES: | Jason Webb |
| v | |
| Julia Barnes (Respondent) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL121-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Gordon |
DELIVERED ON: | 12 October 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | Leave to appeal is refused. The appeal therefore fails. |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN NO APPEAL LIES – where minor civil dispute heard by Adjudicator – whether any reasonably arguable grounds of appeal PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – JURISDICTION – GENERALLY – where application settled at mediation – where term of agreement would be enforceable only by dealing with issues beyond the tribunal’s jurisdiction – whether capable of enforcement by the tribunal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 85 |
APPEARANCES: |
This appeal was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
In the tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction Julia Barnes claimed against Jason Webb nearly $25,000 resulting from an intertwining of their financial affairs while they were in a relationship. This claim was mediated in the tribunal, and resulted in an agreement dated 17 November 2016 signed by both sides in settlement of the claim.
In that agreement, Mr Webb agreed to pay Ms Barnes $12,500 by making two payments of $6,250 each. The first payment to be on 25 November 2016 and the second on 24 December 2016.
It was also provided in the agreement as follows:-
Both parties agree that (named person) will pick up all Mr Webb’s belongings from Ms Barnes’s house situated at (address) on 30 Nov 2016.
Mr Webb paid the first instalment of $6,250 but not the second. He said that although the named person attended the house and collected his belongings, there were things missing. For that reason, and because of some other matters which concerned him, he did not make the second payment.
Ms Barnes applied to the tribunal on 17 January 2017 for an order to give effect to the settlement, that is an order requiring Mr Webb to make the second payment.
Meanwhile Mr Webb had applied on 21 December 2016 for the tribunal to enforce the “belongings” clause in the agreement. He listed the items which he had not received.
The two applications came before the Adjudicator on 13 March 2017. During the hearing the Adjudicator explained to Mr Webb that she was unable to make an order enforcing the belongings clause for three reasons. Firstly, the named person had attended the address given in the agreement, and had been permitted by Ms Barnes to collect Mr Webb’s belongings at the house. So it appeared that Ms Barnes had performed this part of the agreement.[1] Secondly, if it was in dispute whether there were belongings missing, this was not something the tribunal could deal with because to resolve that particular dispute was not within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. It would either be a Family Court or Magistrates Court matter.[2] And finally an agreement to collect “all belongings” without specifying what those belongings were, was too uncertain to be enforced.[3]
[1]Transcript 1-5 line 20, 1-10 line 43.
[2]Transcript 1-5 line 9, 1-8 line 32, 1-9 line 18.
[3]Transcript 1-8 line 20.
In the Adjudicator’s reasons she explained that she was ordering Mr Webb to pay the $6,250 because that was what he was obliged to do under the mediated agreement. She explained also during the hearing that under the agreement, payment of this money was not contingent upon Ms Barnes performing her side of the agreement.[4]
[4]Transcript 1-10, line 2.
In this appeal, Mr Webb asks for the matter to be reconsidered. He relies on Ms Barnes’ failure to meet her obligations under the agreement by failing to allow all his belongings to be collected. Mr Webb also asks for an opportunity which he says was denied to him, to respond to affidavit material submitted to the tribunal by Ms Barnes.
Under section 85(5) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) the tribunal has a discretion whether or not to enforce terms of a settlement agreement reached in mediation. The Adjudicator had no alternative but to make the orders that she did. Under the agreement, the second amount of $6,250 was due for payment on 24 December 2016 and did not depend on the performance of any other part of the agreement by Ms Barnes. It was due anyway. Since it was not set out in the agreement what Mr Webb’s belongings at the address were, the belongings clause was unenforceable for uncertainty as the Adjudicator said. In so far as the question of the belongings was a remaining issue between the parties, it was not within the tribunal’s jurisdiction to be able to deal with it.[5]
[5]The tribunal’s jurisdiction in this type of case is limited to claims for debts or liquidated demands of money or trader-trader or trader-consumer disputes arising from contract.
Appeals in minor civil disputes can only be brought with the leave of the Appeal Tribunal. Such leave will only be given if there is an arguable case on appeal. Such appeals are only arguable if the decision maker is in error in law, or has made a factual finding which could not be made on the evidence. This is not the case here. Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal therefore fails.
0
0
1