Wise Developments Pty Ltd v Technology Leasing Ltd

[2013] QCAT 82

CITATION: Wise Developments Pty Ltd and Anor v Technology Leasing Ltd [2013] QCAT 82

PARTIES:	Wise Developments Pty Ltd Matthew Lynch (Applicants)
v
Technology Leasing Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO1124-12

MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matter

HEARING DATE: 13 November 2012

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Kevin O’Hanlon, Adjudicator

DELIVERED ON: 8 February 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.   Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Contract, agency

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: M. Lynch

RESPONDENT: J. Harrison

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This matter involves a dispute by Mr Matthew Lynch, director of Wise Developments Pty Ltd, in relation to the provision of a telephone and communications system to him which is leased from Technology Leasing Ltd but for which he claims to have been promised the hardware needs to be supplied free of any cost.

1. Mr Lynch asserts that he was mislead by a person employed by Queensland Communications Company Pty Ltd into signing a document which he understood to be an offer for him to receive free phone equipment and telecommunications equipment on the proviso that he sign up with a telephony provider.  He alleges, he unwittingly signed a lease of equipment to be owned by Technology Leasing and has since paid leasing payments throughout the course of the contract.

1. Mr Lynch’s contention is that he was duped and/or mislead into signing the leasing arrangement and this was done with the knowledge of Technology Leasing.  Technology Leasing on the other hand, through in-house counsel, denies that it had any connection with Queensland Communications Company Pty Ltd and was merely carrying out the agreement between itself and Wise Developments Pty Ltd by way of a equipment leasing contract. 

1. At the hearing on 13 November in Brisbane Mr Matthew Lynch attended and Mr John Harrison, in-house counsel for Technology Leasing Ltd was granted leave to appear.  Also at that hearing QCAT Registry had only just received on 12 November (the day before the hearing) a response to the original application.  When it was offered to Mr Lynch to adjourn the proceeding for him to consider the response material and to address us further he declined and accordingly the hearing was suspended for an hour or so until he had read the material.  It was at his wish that the hearing proceeded on 13 November 2012 despite the Tribunal offering him the chance to have the matter adjourned. 

1. During the course of the hearing Mr Lynch gave evidence that he was induced into signing what he thought was a form submitted by a representative for Queensland Communications Company whereby he thought he was being offered free equipment on the basis he sign up for the telephony company.  In fact on his evidence it appears that he signed a leasing equipment form entitled Technology Leasing application.  Throughout the document it states that this is a rental agreement between Technology Leasing Ltd and the customer named the equipment description setting out the equipment to be leased.  It then provides further that in consideration of the total monthly payments Technology Leasing agrees to rent to the customer; the customer is shown as Wise Developments Pty Ltd. 

1. Mr Lynch alleges at the time he signed the document (which is not in dispute) the equipment description in that form was not completed.  He says that when it came back to him eventually the equipment section had been filled in.  Furthermore he had signed a direct debit authority for the payments to be made.

1. Sometime later he then signed a further fresh direct debit request on or about 25 March 2008.  Unfortunately for Mr Lynch there is no evidence of Queensland Communications Pty Ltd (which we are lead to believe is now deregistered and no longer exists) being an agent for Technology Leasing Ltd.  Mr Harrison contends that the leasing application forms are freely available to anybody who seeks to lease equipment and that Queensland Communications Pty Ltd was not acting as it’s agent.

1. Despite numerous attempts by Mr Lynch to try to indicate that he believed the respondents were engaged in some type of third party pushing by the representatives of Queensland Communications Company to set up Technology Leasing there is no evidence to support his contention.

1. On the evidence before me it is plain to see that by the course of payments over the years and furthermore by a fresh debit request form being signed by Mr Lynch he is caught with a contract to lease the equipment and accordingly I cannot find for his application. 

1. As for the response which Mr Harrison contends is a counter application I find that there is insufficient evidence there for me to make a determination in this event.  Accordingly the application by Wise Developments Pty Ltd is dismissed.