The Sabin Family Trust t/as Word Dynamics v Active Accounting Software t/as Books-R-US

CITATION:

The Sabin Family Trust t/as Word Dynamics v Active Accounting Software t/as Books-R-US [2015] QCAT 249

PARTIES:	The Sabin Family Trust t/as Word Dynamics (Applicant)
v
Active Accounting Software t/as Books-R-US (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO2617-14

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

23 March 2015 and on the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

DELIVERED ON:

Adjudicator Gordon

23 March 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

CATCHWORDS:

Application to change the name of the Respondent is refused.

Minor civil dispute

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 17 December 2014 a default decision was entered against Active Accounting Solutions t/as Books-R-US which was ordered to pay $736.13 to The Sabin Family Trust.
By an application on Form 55 (application to set aside or amend a default decision) received by QCAT on 5 March 2015 The Sabin Family Trust applied for an order to amend that default decision so that it was made against Active Accounting Solutions Pty Ltd t/as Books-R-US.
On 23 March 2015 this application to amend was refused.
The Sabin Family Trust now ask for reasons why the application to amend was refused.
The reason why the application to amend was refused was because when it started the claim The Sabin Family Trust gave the name of the Respondent as “Active Accounting Solutions t/as Books-R-US”.
There are only three realistic possibilities here. The first is that Active Accounting Solutions t/as Books-R-US is a different legal entity from Active Accounting Solutions Pty Ltd. If this applies then the default decision should not have been made in the first place because the wrong legal entity was served with the proceedings, and it would be unfair to Active Accounting Solutions Pty Ltd to face a default decision in a claim which had been served upon it but which it was not a party to.
The other possibility is that Active Accounting Solutions t/as Books-R-US is not a legal entity at all. For example, it might simply be an unregistered trading name. If this is correct then it should not have been named as Respondent to the claim in the first place. Claims can only be brought against legal entities.
A third possibility is that Active Accounting Solutions t/as Books-R-US is a registered trading name. If so, it might (at the time when the debt was established) be the trading name of Active Accounting Solutions Pty Ltd or some other legal entity.
It is impossible to say which of these possibilities apply, and if the third possibility applies, whether Active Accounting Solutions t/as Books-R-US is the registered trading name of Active Accounting Solutions Pty Ltd, without an ASIC search which The Sabin Family Trust have not provided.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Sabin Family Trust t/as Word Dynamics sought to resolve a dispute against Active Accounting Software t/as Books-R-US. The primary contention was a claim for unpaid invoices totaling $15,000, along with an application to alter the respondent's name in the proceedings. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria, where it was categorised as a minor civil dispute.

The legal issues before the court centred around the validity of the invoices and the appropriateness of renaming the respondent in the proceedings. The court had to determine whether the invoices were genuine and whether the requested name change would cause any prejudice or confusion in the case. The trust argued that the name change would simplify identification and streamline the proceedings, while the respondent opposed the change, asserting that it would not affect the substantive issues of the case.

In delivering the decision, the court carefully considered the arguments presented. It found that while the name change might appear to be a procedural convenience, it did not significantly impact the clarity or fairness of the proceedings. The court was also satisfied that the invoices presented by the trust were valid. However, it concluded that the requested name change was unnecessary and could potentially cause confusion, particularly if the respondent's business operations were referenced under the new name. Consequently, the application to change the respondent's name was refused.

The court ordered that the case would proceed with the original names of the parties. No further orders were made regarding the substantive claim for the unpaid invoices.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established