Thompson v Hall

CITATION:

Thompson v Hall [2016] QCAT 337

PARTIES:	Emma Thompson (Applicant)
v
Morgan Hall (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO1502-16

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON:

30 August 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The original application filed 20 July 2016 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CATCHWORDS:

Claim for possession of chattel – not a debt – possible action in possession or conversion – form of action not within QCAT’s jurisdiction

Ziegeler t/as Ziegco Pty Ltd v Recochem Incorporated [2010] QCATA 78

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

This application is about the true ownership of a chattel (the boat). It is not a debt, certainly not in the narrow vein/definition as stated in the QCAT Act.
A debt in the Tribunal’s Minor Civil Dispute jurisdiction is a sum that can be calculated by reference to a schedule, yardstick or matrix (and that is not the case here) or as stated in Ziegeler t/as Ziegco Pty Ltd v Recochem Incorporated[1] is one where the sum is determined and, in effect, beyond dispute as to how it is calculated. If the sum depends on assessment by the Court or Tribunal it is not liquidated. Rather, the applicant’s asserted cause of action appears to be in respect of unlawful possession of her property or an action for conversion i.e. wrongful appropriation to the respondent’s own use.
[1][2010] QCATA 78.
There is no Minor Civil Dispute Tribunal jurisdiction to hear a claim of this nature. In these circumstances it is not necessary to address the request for decision by default, or the response or the application to strike out, all filed 24 August 2016.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thompson v Hall involved a claim by the applicant for possession of a chattel, specifically a boat, against the respondent. The dispute arose when the applicant sought to recover possession of the boat from the respondent, who had possession of it at the time of the application. The matter was brought before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The central legal issue before the tribunal was whether the form of action sought by the applicant fell within QCAT’s jurisdiction. The applicant sought an order for possession of the boat, which was argued to be a claim for a debt or for a debt that could potentially be converted into an action in debt. The tribunal had to determine whether the action could be considered a debt claim or if it fell under a different category of claims that were not within QCAT’s jurisdiction.

In addressing the issue, the tribunal considered the nature of the applicant’s claim. It was determined that the applicant’s claim for the possession of the chattel was not a debt claim, nor could it be converted into an action in debt. The tribunal noted that the applicant’s claim for possession of the chattel was not within the scope of QCAT’s jurisdiction as it did not involve a debt or a claim that could be treated as a debt. Consequently, the tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim and dismissed the application.

In summary, the tribunal dismissed the original application for lack of jurisdiction, as the claim for possession of the chattel was not a debt claim and did not fall within QCAT’s jurisdictional scope.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established