GHD Pty Ltd v Consolidated Tin Mines Pty Ltd
[2016] QCAT 133
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- GHD Pty Ltd v Consolidated Tin Mines Pty Ltd[2016] QCAT 133
- Add to List
GHD Pty Ltd v Consolidated Tin Mines Pty Ltd[2016] QCAT 133
GHD Pty Ltd v Consolidated Tin Mines Pty Ltd[2016] QCAT 133
CITATION: | GHD Pty Ltd v Consolidated Tin Mines Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 133 |
PARTIES: | GHD Pty Ltd (Applicant) |
v | |
Consolidated Tin Mines Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO397-16; MCDO398-16 |
MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Adjudicator Bertelsen |
DELIVERED ON: | 14 June 2016 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | Minor Debt applications – professional services – same provider and same recipient of services – whether separate claims can be made – abuse of process |
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]GHD Pty Ltd (‘GHD’) alleges it was commissioned to provide services to Consolidated Tin Mines Pty Ltd. It is one service provider claiming for services rendered to one recipient corporation. Whether that involved one, two or three jobs is not the point. Here there is a total claim against the one corporation. There is no reason why those jobs cannot be pursued as a single claim.
- [2]Put conversely, if the totality of the two claims was less than $25,000.00, the jurisdictional limit of the Minor Civil Disputes – Minor Debt jurisdiction, then no doubt the two claims would have been consolidated for the purpose of hearing.
- [3]This is simply a case of one applicant, one respondent, and one claim for professional services rendered. In this instance, the separation into two individual claims is an unnecessary artificial mechanism.