Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

ME & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd v Redwerks Pty Ltd[2016] QCAT 195

ME & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd v Redwerks Pty Ltd[2016] QCAT 195


ME & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd v Redwerks Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 195


ME & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd ACN 163 690 631




Redwerks Pty Ltd ACN 148 909 317





Other minor civil dispute matters


12 January 2016


On the papers


Adjudicator Mewing


12 January 2016




  1. The application filed on 14 December 2015 to set aside the default decision of 16 October 2015 is refused.


MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – MINOR DEBT – DEFAULT DECISION – Where application to set aside default decision – Where Respondent did not receive originating application due to administrative error



No appearance required


No appearance required

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).


  1. [1]
    On 2 September 2015 the Applicant filed a minor debt claim against the Respondent in the amount of $12,778.67.
  2. [2]
    On 16 October 2015 the Applicant filed an application for Decision by Default, as no response to the Applicant’s claim had been filed by the Respondent within the requisite 28 days.  The Registrar granted the default decision application. 
  3. [3]
    By application filed on 15 December 2015, the Respondent asks this Tribunal to set aside the default decision.
  4. [4]
    Section 51 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 allows the Tribunal, on application by a respondent, to set aside a decision by default on terms the Tribunal considers appropriate.  
  5. [5]
    In its request the Respondent says:

“[T]he Applicant did serve a minor debt claim on the Respondent’s Agents but the Respondent did not have access to the subsequent notification by the Agent.  While the Respondent acknowledges that the service was addressed to its registered address as provided for by s 9 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1982, the Respondent and its directors were not made aware of the process until the 27 November 2015.”        

  1. [6]
    The Respondent also claims that the Applicant’s minor debt claim is without substance.
  2. [7]
    The Tribunal is bound to afford parties natural justice in the conduct of its proceedings.[1]  Natural justice is a flexible concept, the requirements of which must be adjusted to the statutory framework governing the Tribunal in question.[2] Perhaps the most inflexible aspect of natural justice is that a party must have the opportunity to present its case—but a party cannot rely on inability to present its case caused by its own error.[3]    
  3. [8]
    The Respondent concedes that the originating application was validly served on it in accordance with the Service and Execution of Process Act.  The evidence shows it was also served in accordance with QCAT Practice Direction 8 of 2009, which requires an application to be served on a corporation by posting it to the company’s registered office.  The Respondent said the application was not passed on to it, or that it was otherwise “not made aware of it”.  This is not an excuse providing grounds to set aside the default decision. 
  4. [9]
    The public is entitled to assume that the published registered address of an Australian company on ASIC databases is correct, and that notices issued to that company at that address will be received.  It is common for the company’s accountant or other adviser to act as agent for the company by allowing the agent’s office address to be the registered address for the company.  Where that is the case and the agent has omitted to pass on an important letter, it may have a claim against its agent, but the company is not relieved of any liability, detriment or obligation to a third party.    
  5. [10]
    The application to set aside the default decision is dismissed.


[1] QCAT Act s 28.

[2] Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550; Booij & Multiply Plus Pty Ltd v Roper [2015] QCATA 157.

[3] Booij, Ibid.


Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    ME & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd v Redwerks Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    ME & LN Rosemeyer Super Pty Ltd v Redwerks Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCAT 195

  • Court:


  • Judge(s):

    Adjudicator Mewing

  • Date:

    12 Jan 2016

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.