Smithy's on the Park Pty Ltd v Green

[2017] QCAT 43

CITATION:

Smithy’s On The Park Pty Ltd v Green [2017] QCAT 43

PARTIES:

Smithy’s On The Park Pty Ltd
(Applicant)

v

Kirsty Green

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO53463-16

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON:

23 January 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.   Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor debt claim - $25,000.00 monetary limit inclusive of debt and interest – debt and interest exceeding $25,000.00 – claim not capped – monetary jurisdiction exceeded

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), Rule 84

APPEARANCES:

This matter 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

1. On 2 September 2016, the applicant – Smithy’s On The Park Pty Ltd (Smithy’s) filed a Minor Civil Dispute – Minor Debt claim for restaurant supplies sold and delivered as well as rental at 15% turnover, in the sum of $22,261.00, together with interest at $3,976.96, a total of $26,237.96.

2. QCAT’s Minor Civil Dispute – Minor Debt jurisdiction is limited to $25,000.00. That is inclusive of claim and any interest sought to be recovered on that claim. Here that amounts to $26,237.96. The only additional sums that can be awarded are filing fees, search fees, service fees and CITEC fees.[1]

   [1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), Rule 84.

3. The Tribunal’s Minor Civil Dispute jurisdiction can be enlivened by an applicant limiting a claim to $25,000.00 (capping the claim), even though on the face of it the quantum of such claim may exceed $25,000.00. There is no evidence here of the applicant limiting its claim to $25,000.00. On the contrary, the applicant’s affidavit in support of the request for decision by default stated ‘the amount of $26,663.83 remains owing to the applicant in respect of the claim’.

4. Though not necessary to determine that aspect of the claim here, it may well be that the rental/turnover portion of the claim is not strictly a debt, being a percentage of turnover which presumably in itself is a sum to be determined according to usual accounting principles, as opposed to a rental figure recited, for instance, on the face of a lease. In any event, there is no detail in the initiating application as to what documentation, if any, governed the assessment of rent payable.

5. In the circumstances the application ought properly be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.