Crozier & Anor v Key to Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] QCAT 18

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Crozier & Anor v Key to Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] QCAT 18 PARTIES: PAUL TREVOR CROZIER BELINDA JANE CROZIER (applicants) v KEY TO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD GRAHAM MARK SCARROTT (respondents) APPLICATION NO/S: OCL071-21 MATTER TYPE: Other civil dispute matters DELIVERED ON: 5 January 2023 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Deane ORDERS: Direction 1 made 16 March 2022 is vacated. Direction 7 made 16 March 2022 is vacated. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – Claim fund under Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld) – whether issues can be decided as preliminary questions of law Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld), s 77, s 78, s 105 Craig v Ravenshoe Community Centre Inc & Ors [2013] QCATA 177 Nowlan v Medical Board of Australia (No 1) [2019] QCAT 413 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) (QCAT Act) REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is one of several applications, which have been referred to the Tribunal involving Key to Australia Pty Ltd (KTA) and Graham Mark Scarrott (collectively the Respondents). It is not disputed that the Respondents held real estate agent licenses issued in Queensland during the relevant period. -- 1 of 4 -- 2 [2] The Croziers made a claim against the fund established under the Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld) (the Act) (the Fund).1 The claim relates to conduct of the Respondents. The Chief Executive referred the Croziers’ claim to the Tribunal for determination.2 [3] The Tribunal may decide to allow a claim wholly or partly or reject a claim.3 It may decide to allow a claim only if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person may make the claim under division 2.4 If the claim is allowed the Tribunal is to decide the amount of the claimant’s financial loss and name the person who is liable for the loss.5 [4] The Referral contains a report to creditors, which shows that Mr Scarrott became bankrupt on 15 April 2021. [5] An online Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) search shows that KTA was de-registered on 10 July 2022 and therefore no longer exists as a legal entity unless it is re-registered. [6] The Chief Executive raised various issues in the Referral. [7] Although directions for the Croziers6 and the Respondents7 to file statements of evidence were made no statements have been filed. [8] On 16 March 2022, the Tribunal directed that the following issues be determined by the Tribunal as preliminary questions of law: (a) Whether monies paid to the Respondents for development services were monies entrusted to the Respondents on behalf of the Applicants or whether they became the Respondents property to do with as they liked (as referred to in paragraph 26 of the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General (Office of Fair Trading) submissions dated 26 August 2021, which were attached to the referral of a matter to the Tribunal). (b) Whether the Respondents failure to refund the applicant as promised is a representation capable of being relied on for the purpose of a section 212 breach, or is a breach of an agreed contractual provision (as referred to in paragraph 33 of the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General (Office of Fair Trading) submissions dated 26 August 2021, which were attached to the referral of a matter to the Tribunal). [9] The parties and the Chief Executive were directed to file submissions to allow the issues to be determined on the papers. Some submissions have been received.8 [10] I now consider these matters only. 1 Agents Financial Administration Act 2014 (Qld), s 78 (the Act). 2 Referral of a matter (non-disciplinary) filed 31 August 2021; the Act, s 77(a)(i). 3 Ibid, s 105(1). 4 Ibid, s 105(2). 5 Ibid, s 105(3). 6 Direction 4 made 9 September 2021. 7 Direction 4 made 17 September 2021. 8 Chief Executive’s submissions filed 6 July 2022; no submissions were received from the Croziers, Key to Australia Pty Ltd or Mr Scarrott. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [11] The purpose of determining preliminary questions of law is to shorten the proceedings and minimise costs to the parties. [12] As has been observed in the Appeal Tribunal9 Briefly stated, the distinction is between ‘pure’ questions of law (e.g., what is the correct test to be applied in deciding a matter?); questions of ‘pure’ fact (what actually took place between the parties?); and mixed questions – e.g., do facts, as found, satisfy legal tests? [13] In Nowlan v Medical Board of Australia (No 1) the then Deputy President in refusing an application for a preliminary determination of a point of law stated:10 It seems to me that the question of law cannot be properly divorced from its factual context and, if the Tribunal was to proceed in the way contended for by the applicant, it is unlikely to be able to answer the question of law in the absence of the full material that is to provide that factual context. [14] Having reviewed the material filed and considered the submissions, regrettably, I do not consider that these issues can be decided in any meaningful way as preliminary questions of law. In my view they involve mixed questions of fact and law. [15] I have considered whether I could decide the questions as preliminary issues based on agreed or undisputed facts. [16] The Respondents submitted a response to the Chief Executive, which is included in the Referral. It is generic. It does not address the facts of each claim against the Fund. It does not make specific admissions. The Referral notes that Mr Scarrott has been successfully prosecuted for events related to these claims, however there is no specific evidence before me about the charges and the findings of fact or admissions of specific facts in those proceedings upon which I might rely. I do not consider that these issues can be decided as preliminary issues rather than questions of law. Findings of fact are required to decide these questions. It is not appropriate to make findings of fact prior to a final hearing. [17] Unfortunately, this means that rather than shortening the proceedings it has delayed their resolution. Were monies paid to the Respondents for development services monies entrusted to the Respondents on behalf of the Applicants or did they become the Respondents property to do with as they liked? [18] I do not consider that this issue can be decided as a preliminary question of law for the reasons set out earlier. [19] In my view it requires findings of fact to be made and involves mixed questions of fact and law. 9 Craig v Ravenshoe Community Centre Inc & Ors [2013] QCATA 177, [8]. 10 [2019] QCAT 413, [7]. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 Was the Respondents failure to refund the Applicant as promised a representation capable of being relied on for the purpose of a section 212 breach or was it a breach of an agreed contractual provision? [20] I do not consider that this issue can be decided as a preliminary question of law for the reasons set out earlier. [21] In my view it requires findings of fact to be made and involves mixed questions of fact and law. -- 4 of 4 --