2 Business Advisory Pty Ltd v Walltech Systems Australia Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 198

CITATION: 2 Business Advisory Pty Ltd v Walltech Systems Australia Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 198 PARTIES: 2 Business Advisory Pty Ltd (Applicant) v Walltech Systems Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO16-13 / MCDO17-13 / MCDO18-13 / MCDO19-13 / MCDO20-13 / MCDO21-13 / MCDO22-13 MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: John Bertelsen, Adjudicator DELIVERED ON: 17 April 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. Each of the seven applications is dismissed as an abuse of process. CATCHWORDS: JURISDICTION – quantum of claims – singular cause of action – segmentation of cause of action Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 52 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): 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] On 20 December 2012 seven applications were filed at the Tribunal’s Southport registry by 2 Business Advisory Pty Ltd claiming in each and every instance: “Consulting services provided by the applicant to the respondent for the period (then each of the seven applications nominated 1 particular month -- 1 of 4 -- 2 as follows September 2010, November 2010, January 2011, February 2011, March 2011, April 2011 and May 2011). The applicant has previously supplied the respondent with an invoice which has not been disputed.” The applications are numbered 16/13, 17/13, 18/13, 19/13, 20/13, 21/13, 22/13 (Coolangatta reference numbers). [2] On 19 February 2013 the Tribunal ordered as follows: a. Prior to any further step being taken in the application the parties shall file in the tribunal, within 21 days, submissions that establish jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear seven (7) individual claims all asserting consulting services in the period Sept 2010 to May 2011. b. Thereafter the issues of jurisdiction shall be determined on the papers. For the purpose of determining jurisdiction all seven applications are dealt with in these reasons. [3] In each instance the sum claimed was $22,000.00 and varying sums for interest depending upon the age of the monthly services sued for. [4] The applicant, 2 Business Advisory Pty Ltd (2BA) submits “different individual invoices corresponding to work completed on different dates”. However, the claim in each and every instance is identical bar the month and in some cases the year. [5] 2BA submits the “seven different related applications … with less than the prescribed amount … are not a combined claim.” However, as indicated, the claim in each and every instance is identical. The monthly chronology combined with the individual claim seven times over indicates that the totality of the 2BA’s claim has been split into seven. [6] 2BA submits that there is nothing in the QCAT Act which has the effect of limiting the number of claims a relevant person may bring in the Tribunal. That presupposes, of course, that each claim is a separate cause of action not one cause of action split seven ways with no other apparent purpose than to bring each individualised claim within the minor civil dispute jurisdiction. [7] 2BA rightly submits that s 54(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (QCAT Act) allows the Tribunal to direct two or more proceedings concerning the same or related facts and circumstances be consolidated into one proceeding; but then further submits “the seven different applications … are in no doubt related claims”; then further submits “it is a consolidation of proceedings not to add up the seven different related claims into one”. [8] Consolidation is based on the apprehension of identical causes of action although so closely related that the two or more causes of action can be heard together. Consolidation therefore denotes one outcome, one -- 2 of 4 -- 3 decision resulting from one consolidated hearing i.e. a single order to do something or pay someone. [9] In the case of these seven applications any such decision must logically reflect the concluding of that which is consolidated i.e. all seven claims. That is impossible to address in the minor civil dispute jurisdiction as it involves the consolidation of all seven claims at one hearing as well as the possibility of a decision far in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictional limit. [10] Amazingly 2BA then submits that “we agreed that the seven different applications for minor civil dispute – minor debt are identical and should be heard in one proceeding pursuant to section 54(1) as it would be more expedient, efficient and effective if the seven different related claims will be heard once by the Tribunal”. That is effectively saying one consolidated claim, one hearing and one outcome. [11] Conversely, an equally artificial construct would be to hear each of the seven applications separately such as to make valid, at least in monetary terms, seven separate decisions to do something or pay someone. The suggestion that a decision in one claim would effectively decide each of the other six amounts to a prehearing admission of the identical nature of each of the monthly services and itself is confirmatory of what appears, when each of the seven applications is examined, to be a running or ongoing account conducted between the parties. The respondent’s submissions [12] The respondent (WSA) submits “the seven actions are identical” and “the facts and circumstances in each matter are identical save for the month sued for and the amount of the interest claimed”. [13] WSA then submits “it is WSA submission that the matters are consolidated into one claim and that such claim is left for determination by the Tribunal”. [14] WSA takes the view that to allow seven claims to remain as such would be an abuse of process. [15] WSA then submits “that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the seven claims if they are consolidated into one claim.” The effect of consolidation is to take the consolidated claim far beyond the minor civil dispute monetary jurisdiction limit. [16] WSA submits that s 12 of the QCAT Act “details how that jurisdiction is to be applied and over what quantum of claim”. [17] WSA is presumably referring to a person limiting a claim so as to bring the quantum back to within the prescribed limit i.e. $25,000. [18] WSA then quotes a passage from Queensboro Pty Ltd v Butler Pullnow Pty Ltd (1999) NSWSC 700, the most pertinent portion for which for present purposes is “abandonment of the excess is the price that has to -- 3 of 4 -- 4 be paid by a litigant who wishes to litigate a cause of action in an inferior court.” [19] WSA seems to be under the impression that if an order consolidating the seven claims was made pursuant to s 54 of the QCAT Act then s 12 would operate to confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to determine the matter in a manner endorsed by their Honours in Queensboro i.e. abandonment of excess. That would have the effect of limiting the consolidated claim to $25,000. [20] WSA then submits that it would be an abuse of process to allow, “seven claims to proceed as the combined monetary amount claimed totals $186,961.92”; that in those circumstances it is WSA’s submission that the seven matters be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction as provided for by s 52 of the QCAT Act. Conclusions [21] The filing of seven applications, identical except for month or year nominated is an artificial construct of a single train of events that in reality constitutes the one cause of action. [22] Consolidation does not serve to ground the applications within the Tribunal in its minor civil dispute jurisdiction rather is confirmatory of the identical nature of the applications. [23] The quantum of the cause of action far exceeds the minor civil dispute monetary jurisdiction limit. The totality of the applicants monetary claim is major and is not nor ever was a number of segmented minor claims. [24] The very notion of filing seven segmented claims arising from one train of events and having them consolidated for hearing is a contradiction in terms and an abuse of process in that it attempts to utilise the Tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction to effectively prosecute a claim of some $186,000. [25] The multiplicity of applications filed with respect to the one cause of action would suggest a more efficient course to be followed is for these applications to be dismissed and one properly pleaded claim be made in a Court of competent jurisdiction. [26] Each of the seven applications is dismissed as an abuse of process. -- 4 of 4 --