Lamaletie v Catchafuture Pty Ltd

[2012] QCAT 596

CITATION: Lamaletie v Catchafuture Pty Ltd [2012] QCAT 596

PARTIES:	Paul Lamaletie (Applicant)
v
Catchafuture Pty Ltd atf The C&M Dalton Family Trust (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCL088-12

MATTER TYPE: Other civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Sandra G Deane, Member

DELIVERED ON: 27 November 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Body Corporate dispute – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine – whether a dispute or complex dispute

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, ss 149B, 227, Schedule 6

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Lamaletie commenced an application to resolve a complex dispute under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (BCCM Act) relating to a claimed or anticipated contractual matter.[1]

   [1] Section 149B BCCM Act.

2. Mr Lamaletie is an owner of a lot in La Place Community Titles Scheme 23266.

3. Catchafuture Pty Ltd atf The C&M Dalton Family Trust is a party to a Caretaking Agreement with the body corporate of La Place Community Titles Scheme 23266.

4. Mr Lamaletie is effectively seeking orders to enforce the caretaking agreement.

5. The Tribunal is a creature of statute and only has the powers vested in it by the QCAT Act and by relevant enabling acts such as the BCCM Act.

6. By direction dated 12 October 2012 the Tribunal directed the parties to file and serve submissions in relation to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the Application brought by Mr Lamaletie in his capacity as lot owner.

7. The categories of disputes contemplated by the BCCM Act are set out.[2]  Dispute is defined to include a dispute between the body corporate and the owner of a lot in the scheme[3] and between the body corporate and a caretaking service contractor[4] but not between a caretaking service contractor and an owner. 

   [2] Section 227 BCCM Act.

   [3] Section 227(1)(b) BCCM Act.

   [4] Section 227(1)(d) BCCM Act.

8. A complex dispute is defined.[5] It includes a dispute mentioned in section 149B, which applies to a dispute about a claimed or anticipated contractual matter about the engagement of a person as a caretaking service contractor. Contractual matter is defined to include a contravention, the exercise of rights or the performance of duties under the terms of engagement.[6]

   [5] Schedule 6 BCCM Act.

   [6] Schedule 6 BCCM Act.

9. The application seeks orders to enforce what Mr Lamaletie contends are contractual rights between the body corporate and the caretaking service contractor.

10. I find that the dispute is not a complex dispute within the meaning of section 149B of the BCCM Act because a dispute does not include a dispute between a caretaking service contractor and an owner. The appropriate party to bring a claim in relation to seeking to enforce a caretaking agreement is the body corporate not an individual lot owner.

11. I therefore find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.