Aardoom v Morokutti [2026] QCATA 89

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL TRIBUNAL CITATION: Aardoom v Morokutti [2026] QCATA 89 PARTIES: JODIE LOUISE AARDOOM (appellant) v MARIA RITA MOROKUTTI (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: APL364-24 ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: Q2703-24 MATTER TYPE: Appeals DELIVERED ON: 22 May 2026 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judicial Member Stilgoe OAM ORDERS: Leave to appeal refused. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – OTHER CASES – where the appellant and respondent are neighbours – where earthworks was done on the boundary line – where an application for minor civil dispute – minor debt was filed – whether the Tribunal was in error by dismissing the application for want of jurisdiction – whether there was previous agreement for the payment of money – whether there was a lack of procedural fairness Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 sch 3 Brayalei Pty Ltd v ABC Scaffolds Pty Ltd [2018] QCAT 299 Crown Estates Pty Ltd v Fitzpatrick [2015] QCAT 37 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) -- 1 of 3 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Jodie Aardoom and Maria Morokutti are neighbours. Ms Aardoom says that Ms Morokutti’s earthworks contractor was excavating on her land to make a track on the boundary line of their properties. Ms Aardoom says that the contractor caused damage to her property. She filed an application for minor civil dispute – minor debt – to recover the cost of reinstating her land. [2] The Tribunal dismissed Ms Aardoom’s application for want of jurisdiction. [3] Ms Aardoom wants to appeal the Decision. She says the Tribunal was dismissive, and that she was not allowed to speak as Ms Morokutti kept talking over the top of her. She says that the Tribunal did not properly consider her evidence. [4] Because this is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary. [5] To determine whether leave should be granted the following questions must be addressed: (a) Is there a reasonably arguable case of error in the Decision? (b) Is it reasonably possible that the Appellant will get what they are seeking from the appeal? (c) Is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the Appellant caused by the error? (d) Would a decision of the appellate tribunal on the error benefit the public? Jurisdiction [6] When determining a minor civil dispute the Tribunal must have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.1 [7] A minor civil dispute is a “a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money, with or without interest”.2 A debt for the purposes of the minor civil dispute jurisdiction is a sum of money owning by one party to the other pursuant to and arising out of an agreement or acknowledgement to pay between the parties.3 [8] Ms Morokutti says that the claim is invalid because a minor debt dispute must involve a previous agreement about payment of an amount of money, which is not the case with this claim. She says that there was no previous agreement for the payment of money. [9] The Tribunal found no evidence of any notices for contribution for fences, nor notices of intended work, that might support the finding of an agreement. I have no reason to come to a different view. Ms Aardoom’s claim was not a minor debt, and the Tribunal was correct in its finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. [10] The Tribunal was not in error when fining a lack of jurisdiction. 1 Brayalei Pty Ltd v ABC Scaffolds Pty Ltd [2018] QCAT 299 [4]-[5]. 2 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 sch 3. 3 Crown Estates Pty Ltd v Fitzpatrick [2015] QCAT 37 [27]. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [11] Ms Morokutti wishes to rely on new evidence; that the rock wall is now very overgrown and that Mackay Regional Council deemed the rock wall an illegal build. The appeals tribunal will only accept fresh evidence if it was not reasonably available at the time the proceeding was heard and determined.4 Ordinarily, an applicant for leave to adduce such evidence must satisfy each of the following tests: (a) The evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial; (b) The evidence, if allowed, would probably have an important impact on the result of the case (although it need not be demonstrated that it would be decisive); and (c) That the evidence is credible though it need not be incontrovertible.5 [12] This appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and determine this matter as a minor civil dispute. Ms Morokutti’s information, while it could be useful to determining the dispute in the correct jurisdiction, is not relevant to the present issue of jurisdiction. Was the proceeding unfair to Ms Aardoon? [13] Given the Tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction, the decision not to hear the merits of the claim is understandable. The hearing was short, but, because she wanted to argue the merits of the claim, Ms Aardoom was not denied procedural fairness [14] As the Tribunal noted, Ms Aardoom is not without a remedy, as she may bring proceedings in the correct jurisdiction. Orders Leave to appeal refused. 4 QCAT Act ss 137, 138. 5 Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404 at 408. -- 3 of 3 --