Briridge Pty Ltd t/as Civic Video Springfield v Carter Hall Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] QCAT 533

CITATION: Briridge Pty Ltd t/as Civic Video Springfield v Carter Hall Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] QCAT 533 PARTIES: Briridge Pty Ltd t/as Civic Video Springfield (Applicant) v Carter Hall Holdings Pty Ltd (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: RSL043-13 MATTER TYPE: Retail shop leases matters HEARING DATE: 14 October 2013 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: James White, Member DELIVERED ON: 14 October 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. Application to Strike Out is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Application to Strike Out – Abuse of Process – where previous Notice of Dispute was withdrawn. APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Applicant for strike out is Charter Hall Holdings Pty Ltd, the Respondent to the current proceedings, RSL 034-11. The sole ground of the application is that Briridge Pty Ltd, the Applicant to the current proceedings, previously filed a Notice of Dispute, RSL 006-11 which was subsequently withdrawn. Charter Hall submits that the current proceedings are an abuse of process. [2] In respect to the previous proceedings RSL 006-11, it is noted that Senior Member Kerrie O’Callaghan, directed, “the Notice of Dispute is withdrawn”. -- 1 of 2 -- 2 [3] The Tribunal did not determine the matter and there were no findings or reasons given. The Notice of Dispute did not eventuate in a final hearing. It was, on the face of it, simply withdrawn. [4] To be an abuse of process, the Notice of Dispute would need to be a frivolous or vexatious action or had been already decided by a competent court.1 The current proceedings do not constitute a rehearing of the previous proceedings, as there was no final hearing or determination in the previous proceedings. [5] There are substantive issues to be determined, including but not limited to questions relating to audit reports, outgoings and advertising costs. [6] It is clear to me that the current proceedings are not an abuse of process. [7] Accordingly, the Application is dismissed. 1 Osborne P.J., p 4, A Concise Law Dictionary, Sweet & Maxwell, 1964. -- 2 of 2 --