Adigitalife Pty Ltd v CJ King & Co Printer Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 216

CITATION: Adigitalife Pty Ltd v CJ King & Co Printer Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 216 PARTIES: Adigitalife Pty Ltd (Applicant/Appellant) v CJ King & Co Printer Pty Ltd (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL090-12 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Richard Oliver, Senior Member DELIVERED ON: 29 October 2012 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal refused. CATCHWORDS: Minor Civil Dispute – whether the respondent was entitled to commence recovery proceedings. Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 142(3) APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] In August 2011 CJ King & Co bought a proceeding in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal to recover $1,500.00 for printing costs plus late payment fee, interest, filing fee, search fee and service fee. The total claim was for $2,335.00. During the course of the hearing it became apparent that CJ King was not entitled to recover the late payment fee and interest (penalty charges) because the account of $1,500.00 was paid on 16 August 2011. At the conclusion of the hearing the learned Member pointed out these difficulties to Mrs King, representing the respondent, -- 1 of 2 -- 2 who conceded on these issues and said “Ok we’ll accept the costs, please”. [2] The learned Member was of the opinion, which appears from the transcript, CJ King was entitled to commence the proceeding to recover the outstanding debt, at least. She then ordered that the applicant pay CJ King $176.97 for the filing fee, search fee and service fee. [3] Adigitalife has appealed that decision because it says that the invoice was paid within 30 days of invoicing and the commencement of the proceeding in the Tribunal was premature. That being the case, it says, CJ King was not entitled to the costs awarded to it. [4] This is an appeal from a decision in the minor civil dispute jurisdiction and therefore leave to appeal is necessary. Leave to appeal will only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and a reasonable prospect that the applicant would obtain further substantive relief. Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error? [5] The terms and conditions of payment are set out at the bottom of the invoice. The parties acknowledge that the invoice was first sent to Adigitalife on 27 July 2011, despite its bearing a date of 17 February 2011. The terms provide, amongst other things, that: Payment must be received before the first day of the new/following month. A penalty surcharge of 15% flat will be levied immediately on all outstanding account balances. [6] Consistent with that statement, a subsequent invoice was issued on 9 August 2011 which included a 15% penalty charge in the sum of $225.00 which formed part of the original claim. [7] I cannot discern, from the documents or the evidence, any basis upon which it can be contended that the applicant had 30 days from the date of invoice to pay the account. In addition the applicant had the benefit of the printing work from February of that year and had not paid for it. It was only upon revision of work done by an employee, Brendan Keevers, that it was realised that the work had not been charged out to the applicant. Mr Racic chose not to inform the respondent that the applicant had not been invoiced for the work, and it seems was content to maintain that position. [8] The learned Member was correct in awarding the costs because the account was not paid within the terms set out in the invoice, that is by 1 August 2011 and therefore the respondent was entitled to commence proceedings to recover the outstanding sum. [9] I am not satisfied that there has been an error or substantial injustice which would warrant a grant of leave to appeal and therefore it is refused. -- 2 of 2 --