Doran v Carter [2019] QCAT 23

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Doran v Carter [2019] QCAT 23 PARTIES: DAVID DORAN (applicant) v LOUISA ANN CARTER (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: MCDO01011-18 Brisbane MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters DELIVERED ON: Date of orders 20 September 2018 Reasons delivered 18 February 2019 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Howe ORDERS: 1. The application filed 16 July 2018 for minor civil dispute – minor debt is deemed to be an application for minor civil dispute – consumer dispute. 2. Application by the respondent to dismiss the application filed 16 July 2018 is refused. 3. Application by the applicant to be represented is refused. 4. The application for miscellaneous matters, filed by the applicant on 20 September 2018 will be determined at the hearing of the matter at a date to be fixed. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where incorrect application used to commence proceedings – where respondent makes application to dismiss this application – where applicant makes application for representation – where application for an oral hearing REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Self-represented APPEARANCES: -- 1 of 3 -- 2 This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 20 September 2018 I made the following orders in this matter: (i) The application filed 16 July 2018 for minor civil dispute – minor debt is deemed to be an application for minor civil dispute – consumer dispute. (ii) Application by the respondent to dismiss the application filed 16 July 2018 is refused. (iii) Application by the applicant to be represented is refused. (iv) The application for miscellaneous matters, filed by the applicant on 20 September 2018 will be determined at the hearing of the matter at a date to be fixed. [2] The applicant has asked for reasons for the orders made. The following is provided in response. [3] The applicant commenced proceedings by filing the wrong form of application. He filed a Minor Civil Dispute – Minor Debt application, which is only available where the claim is for a liquidated sum of money. It is not available where the claim is for damages or compensation arising out of a motor vehicle accident. [4] The applicant should have filed a Form 1 Consumer and Trader, Property Dispute application. [5] Rather than have the applicant proceed to a hearing and have his application dismissed because he filed the wrong application, I ordered that the Minor Civil Dispute – Minor Debt application be deemed an application for Minor Civil Dispute – Consumer Dispute to assist the applicant to have his claim determined at the earliest possible time and to avoid the technical problem he faced by filing the wrong initiating document. [6] The respondent filed an application for miscellaneous matters on 30 August 2018. With that application she applied to have the applicant’s claim against her dismissed. She appears to assert that the car claimed by the applicant to have been involved in an accident with a driver of her vehicle was different from the one purportedly involved in an accident, and there were no registration plates shown on the subject vehicle identified in a photograph supplied by the applicant or some other person on the applicant’s behalf. [7] The respondent’s assertions were vague and the truth or otherwise of her assertions must appropriately be addressed at hearing after evidence is led. At a hearing the assertions of the parties together with any documentary evidence will be put before an Adjudicator who will then be best placed to determine the divergent claims of both parties. It is not appropriate at such an early stage of the proceedings and before evidence is led to dispose of the applicant’s claim in such summary fashion as requested. Accordingly the respondent’s application for miscellaneous matters was refused. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [8] The applicant also applied on 20 September 2018 to be represented by his wife at any hearing before the Tribunal. By s 43 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) all parties are required to represent themselves in all matters unless the interests of justice require otherwise. The application was completed by the applicant’s wife who said her husband lacked the ability to be as articulate as she was and that the matter was very complex. [9] The matter is not complex. It is a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal deals with many similar claims on a daily basis. There is nothing special about this matter and the usual rule should apply and each party must represent him or herself. [10] Finally the applicant made a further miscellaneous application on 20 September 2018 requesting an oral hearing. That will occur in any case as the usual process on a date to be fixed. [11] The miscellaneous application was difficult to understand but also appeared to question why the respondent was provided with a copy of the initiating application when the respondent contacted the registry. [12] All parties are entitled to know the claims made against them. The applicant is not entitled to a decision made in the absence of the respondent being given a fair chance to comment and lead evidence to refute the applicant’s claim. As at the time of the respondent contacting the registry no copy of the original minor debt application filed by the applicant had been served on the respondent. [13] All issues between the parties will be determined at the hearing. A date for hearing has as yet not been set. The Tribunal deals with many thousands of such matters over the course of any given year and the parties must wait their turn for a hearing along with all other parties. -- 3 of 3 --