Cameron Family Trust v Applikote Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2022] QCATA 136

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Cameron Family Trust v Applikote Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2022] QCATA 136 PARTIES: CAMERON FAMILY TRUST (appellant) v APPLIKOTE GOLD COAST PTY LTD (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: APL125-21 ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: MCDO743-20 MATTER TYPE: Appeals DELIVERED ON: 15 September 2022 HEARING DATE: 9 September 2022 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member PG Stilgoe OAM ORDERS: Leave to appeal refused. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – leave to appeal – minor civil dispute – whether the tribunal had jurisdiction – whether the tribunal made an error of fact – where the Applicant had issued invoices – where the Respondent challenged the basis of the invoices – where the nature of the claim had changed from a liquidated debt to a breach of contract – where the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction – where the tribunal did not make findings of fact – where the Applicant claimed the Respondent steered the tribunal away from the real dispute Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act s 12(4), s 32, s52(2), s 95, s 142(3) Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Hashfield v Gold Coast City Council [2020] QCATA 36 Hi Dow Australia Pty Ltd v Shivlosh Australia Pty Ltd [2015] QCATA 155 Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 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] In 2008, Applikote Gold Coast Pty Ltd engaged Keith Cameron as trustee for the Cameron Family Trust (Cameron) to provide management services. Applikote agreed to pay Cameron fortnightly on presentation of an invoice. [2] Applikote did not pay Cameron’s invoices dated 11 June and 27 June 2020. Cameron filed an application in the tribunal; the tribunal dismissed Cameron’s claim for want of jurisdiction. [3] Cameron wants to appeal that decision. Cameron's application submits that the tribunal always had jurisdiction to hear the dispute and it was wrong to dismiss the claim. In oral submissions, Mr Cameron submitted that there was an error of fact in the tribunal’s finding that there was a bigger dispute between the parties than appeared from the two unpaid invoices. Mr Cameron also submitted that Applikote steered the tribunal away from the real dispute and, therefore, the hearing took on an unnecessary complexity. [4] Because this is an appeal from a decision of the tribunal in its minor civil disputes jurisdiction, leave is necessary.1 Leave to appeal will usually be granted where there is a reasonable argument that the decision is attended by error, and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant caused by that error.2 Did the tribunal have jurisdiction to hear Cameron’s claim? [5] A person can file a minor civil dispute if the dispute is a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money.3 The tribunal found that the invoices “on the surface” did appear to be a liquidated demand for money.4 So far, the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. [6] By challenging the basis on which the invoices were issued, Applikote changed the nature of the dispute from a claim for debt to a claim for breach of contract. The tribunal clearly acknowledged the change in the nature of the claim, suggesting that Cameron’s claim was, in fact, a claim in quantum meruit.5 [7] The tribunal might still have been able to decide the dispute if it was a dispute between trader and trader6 - a point not argued by either party to this appeal. The tribunal has determined that a person providing financial and management services is not a trader.7 The duties and responsibilities Cameron undertook are set out in Schedule A to the agreement. They are clearly management services and, therefore, Cameron could not be considered a trader. 1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act s 142(3)(a)(i) (‘QCAT Act’). 2 Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 [3]. 3 QCAT Act s 12(4)(a). 4 T1-21, 22 – 34. 5 T1-22, 46 – T1-23, 7. 6 QCAT Act s 12(4)(c). 7 See Hi Dow Australia Pty Ltd v Shivlosh Australia Pty Ltd [2015] QCATA 155. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [8] Even if the invoices supported a claim for minor debt, if a substantial part of the claim is not to recover a debt or liquidated demand and is not otherwise within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, it has no jurisdiction to hear the claim.8 [9] The tribunal was not in error in finding that there was no jurisdiction to hear Cameron’s claim. Was there an error of fact? [10] Findings of fact by a Tribunal will not usually be disturbed on appeal if the facts inferred by the Tribunal, upon which the finding is based, can support its conclusions, and there is evidence capable of supporting any inferences underlining it.9 [11] The transcript shows that there was a dispute between the parties about the events preceding Cameron’s invoices. The tribunal did not make any findings about the facts, so it is difficult to understand how the tribunal could have made an error of fact. [12] If Mr Cameron was suggesting that the tribunal should not have accepted any evidence about the dispute, that is a question of procedure. The tribunal must allow a party a reasonable opportunity to call evidence.10 The tribunal correctly allowed Applikote to give evidence about why it did not pay the disputed invoices. Applikote steered the tribunal away from the real dispute [13] I have already identified that Applikote was entitled to provide evidence and make submissions about why it did not think the debt was payable. It makes sense, therefore, that Applikote was entitled to “steer the tribunal” towards its view of the facts and away from Cameron’s view of the facts. There was no error in the tribunal permitting the hearing to take this course. Conclusion [14] Cameron has not demonstrated that the tribunal was in error. Leave to appeal should be dismissed. [15] It is worthwhile repeating the tribunal’s comments that the dismissal of this claim does not mean that Cameron does not have a valid claim. The tribunal specifically noted that it made no findings about that.11 [16] It was open for the tribunal to transfer Cameron’s claim to a more appropriate forum,12 in this case the Magistrates Court. As the tribunal did not do this, and the Magistrates Court requires a degree of formality that the tribunal does not, I do not consider it appropriate to transfer the claim at this stage of the proceeding. 8 Hashfield v Gold Coast City Council [2020] QCATA 36. 9 Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 [561]; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 [125]-[126]. 10 QCAT Act s 95. 11 T1-23, 20–25. 12 QCAT Act s 52(2). -- 3 of 3 --