Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2023
  4. Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd - [2023] QCAT 222

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

Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd[2023] QCAT 222

Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd[2023] QCAT 222

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 222

PARTIES:

RAKESH PADARATH

KAMLESH PADARATH

(applicants)

v

QUEENSLAND VEDIC CULTURAL CENTRE PTY LTD, ABN 27 600 692 279

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

MCDO60610/20

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

31 May 2023

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator LeMass

Adjudicator Scott-Mackenzie

ORDERS:

The respondent, Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd, pay to the first applicant, Dr Rakesh Padarath, $5,123.20 within 14 days of this order.

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – action for debt – where monies advanced to voluntary association – whether advance a loan or donation – whether director had authority of board of voluntary association to enter the loan agreement – whether the loan agreement is  enforceable

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 126, s 127

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 11, schedule 3

Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Ors (MCDO 60589/20) (heard on 22 November 2022)

Pal v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Anor (MCDO 60617/20) (heard on 22 November 2022)

Deo v Singh & Anor (MCDO 524/21) (heard on 23 November 2022)

Prasad v Singh & Anor (MCDO 523/21) (heard on 24 November 2022)

Junker v Hepburn [2010] NSWSC 88

Colin R Price & Associates Pty Ltd v Four Oaks Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 764

Singh v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (MCDO 970/20, decided on 18 May 2021)

Prasad v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QCATA 174

Hill v Berghofer [2011] QCATA 34

Ziegeler t/a Ziegco Pty Ltd v Recochem Incorporated [2010] QCATA 78

Spain v Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand Ltd (1923) 32 CLR 138

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicants:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Mr Sukarm Singh

Dr Sukhvir Singh

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. [1]
    This proceeding, and four other proceedings arising out of similar facts, were heard by this Tribunal on 22, 23 and 24 November 2022.[1]  The decision in each proceeding should be read together.
  2. [2]
    For the reasons in this proceeding following, the decision of Tribunal is that the respondent, Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (QVCC), pay to the first applicant, Dr Rakesh Padarath (Dr Padarath), $5,123.20, $5,000.00 repayment of money lent by him to QVCC together with $123.20 the fee on filing the application in the proceeding, within 14 days of this order.

Application

  1. [3]
    On 2 August 2020 Dr Padarath made application to the Tribunal for an order that QVCC pay to him $5,000.00 together with the filing fee on the application of $123.20, a total of $5,123.20 (application).  The application contains the following explanation for the order sought:
  1. There is a written agreement between The Directors of the Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre and myself for the loan payment by the above date [11 April 2020]. 
  2. I have tried to communicate with the current directors via e-mail seeking my loan repayment but I have not been able to secure any repayments
  1. [4]
    The following documents were filed with the application:
  1. (a)
    a loan agreement between Dr and Mrs Padarath as lenders and Mr Deo for QVCC as borrower dated 11 April 2018 (loan agreement).  It is signed by Dr Padarath and Mr Jitendra Deo (Mr Deo) but not Mrs Padarath; and
  2. (b)
    letter Dr Padarath and others to QVCC dated 8 May 2008.
  1. [5]
    Mrs Padarath was added as second applicant in the proceeding.

Response

  1. [6]
    On 31 August 2020 QVCC filed a response to the application (response).  In paragraph 1 of part D, the orders sought by QVCC, it is said:

1.  Mr Jitendra Deo did not have the authority to enter into to the purported “Loan Agreement” on behalf of the company.  Directors of the company neither gave any authority to Mr Jitendra Deo to enter into or sign any loan agreement on behalf of the company nor considered any proposal to take loans from any source for the company.  2.  The matter of claim and relief sought is subject of proceeding in The District Court of Queensland, Brisbane wide Registry No. 610/2020.  3.  In the alternative any funds provided by the applicant were DONATIONS, which he is now trying to portray and claim as a debt in connivance with Mr Jitendra Deo, whose malefic intentions towards QVCC are well known.  4.  That the applicant has not provided any document or evidence, worth relying on, in support of his claim.

(Emphasis added)

  1. [7]
    In summary, QVCC asserts:
  1. (a)
    Mr Deo did not have authority to enter the loan agreement on behalf of QVCC; and
  2. (b)
    the money paid by Dr Padarath to QVCC was a donation.
  1. [8]
    QVCC does not dispute payment of $5,000.00 by Dr Padarath to it.

Statement of defence

  1. [9]
    QVCC, on 11 October 2021, filed a letter addressed to the Tribunal and dated 8 October 2021, described in the opening paragraph as, “... our statement of defense [sic.] to facilitate your understanding of our side of the case ...”  It asserts:
  1. (a)
    Dr Padarath is a member of a group “... working with Mr Jitendra Deo to lodge claims against Respondent ...”;
  2. (b)
    like claims have been heard and decided by the Tribunal;
  3. (c)
    the loan agreement is invalid; and
  4. (d)
    Mr Deo did not have authority to enter the agreement.

Order of 19 July 2022

  1. [10]
    The Tribunal, on 19 July 2022, made orders for the parties filing affidavits deposing to facts and evidence on which they will rely at the hearing of the proceeding.  Dr and Mrs Padarath filed an affidavit on 9 August 2022, affirmed by them on 8 August 2022 (Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit).  The affidavit was not served on QVCC.
  2. [11]
    The contents of the affidavit, and the annexures to it, are discussed below under the subheading Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit[2].
  3. [12]
    On 13 September 2022 QVCC filed an affidavit, affirmed by Mr Sukarm Singh (Mr Singh) (Mr Singh appeared on behalf of QVCC with Dr Sukhvir Sing (Dr Singh)), a director, and the secretary of QVCC, on 8 September 2022 (Mr Singh’s affidavit).  The contents of the affidavit and exhibits to it are discussed below under the subheading Mr Singh’s affidavit[3].

Hearing

  1. [13]
    The proceeding was heard by the Tribunal on 23 November 2022.  Dr and Mrs Padarath appeared in person.  Mr Singh and Dr Sing appeared on behalf of QVCC.
  2. [14]
    Dr Padarath and Mr Singh addressed the Tribunal and made closing submissions.

Further submissions by QVCC

  1. [12]
    QVCC, on 8 December 2022, filed further submissions.  It did so without the leave of the Tribunal and without serving the submissions on Dr and Mrs Padarath.
  2. [13]
    The opening paragraph of the submissions reads:

This is in reference to the decision taken by the Tribunal on 24th November 2022 in response the objection raised by the Respondent about the fairness of the proceedings in the light of the Tribunal Order dated 19 July 2022, in the subject matter of Brisbane Claim 0000523/21 Lalta Prasad vs QVCC.  The objection related to all claims heard by the Adjudicators.  The adjudicator considered the points raised by the respondent and made the decision as communicated to the respondent through email dated 24 November 2022.  Though this act does not alleviate the disadvantage caused to Respondent, however, as per the decision of the Tribunal the Respondent (QVCC) hereby submits the following facts for consideration before the Tribunal gives its decision in the matter of applicant’s claim.

  1. [14]
    As been said, on 5 August 2022 Dr and Mrs Padarath filed an affidavit.  They depose to the circumstances surrounding, and the making of, the alleged loan, circumstances well known to QVCC.  Annexes to the affidavit are documents familiar to QVCC.
  2. [15]
    The affidavit was not served on QVCC as required by the order of the Tribunal.  Notwithstanding, the Tribunal allowed Dr and Mrs Padarath to rely on the affidavit.  It did so because the circumstances giving rise to the claim in this proceeding were similar to the circumstances giving rise to the claims in several other proceedings before the Tribunal and the courts, the payment of the money by Dr and Mrs Padarath to QVCC is not in dispute and QVCC had responded to the claim, in detail.
  3. [16]
    QVCC was given an opportunity to read the affidavit.  It did not apply for an adjournment of the proceeding.
  4. [17]
    We are satisfied QVCC understood the case it had to meet.  It was not prejudiced by Dr and Mrs Padarath not serving the affidavit on it.
  5. [18]
    QVCC also complains about Mr Deo giving evidence without it being provided with a statement of evidence as required by the order.  The time to object was either before or during the hearing.  It did not do so.
  6. [19]
    Further, Mr Deo had already given evidence in Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd[4] and Pal v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Anor[5] about similar agreements and his evidence cannot have come as a surprise.  If it did, QVCC might have applied to the Tribunal for an adjournment to afford it an opportunity to meet the surprise.  It did not do so.
  7. [20]
    Mr Deo was cross examined by Mr Singh.
  8. [21]
    We are satisfied QVCC was not prejudiced by not having a statement of evidence.
  9. [22]
    Otherwise, nothing in the submissions is evidence not available to QVCC at the time of the hearing.  The submissions will be put to one side.

Evidence

Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit

  1. [23]
    Dr and Mrs Padarath, in their affidavit, affirm that following numerous emails and verbal communications to all members of QVCC from the directors asking for loans to complete the building project, they provided a two-year interest free loan to QVCC.[6]  The loan is said to be evidenced by the loan agreement[7] and a statutory declaration by Angela Kay Lindsay made 13 October 2021 deposing to witnessing the signing of the agreement by Dr Padarath and Mr Deo[8], and a bank statement showing a debit of $5,000.00 on 12 April 2018[9].
  2. [24]
    Dr and Mrs Padarath annex to their affidavit, as item 3, an email from Mr Deo to members of QVCC entitled “Loans and Pledges update” sent on 25 February 2018.  Relevantly, the email reads:

The interest free loan of $100K which was requested from members has reached $90K since and after further request made last week Thursday 22.  Sabha needed from the members loan of $100K, Interest free for two years.

...

As you can see the target is almost met; just need another two members to help us out contributing loan of $5K ...

...

(Emphasis added).

  1. [25]
    Dr and Mrs Padarath and others, on 8 May 2020, asked for repayment of their loans as soon as possible, alternatively other repayment terms as agreed immediately.[10]
  2. [26]
    Item 7 to Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit is a copy of QVCC’s bank statement for 5 March 2018 – 16 April 2018 showing a deposit of $5,000.00 on 11 April 2018.  The details read, “DEPOSIT Dr Padarath Loan”.
  3. [27]
    Also annexed to Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit as item 9 are the following minutes:
  1. (a)
    minutes of the meeting of the executive committee of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of Queensland (APSQ) held on 4 February 2018.  The persons present at the meeting included Mr Deo[11], Mr Mul Chand[12], Mr Hari Chand[13], Dr Singh[14], Mr Singh[15], and Mr Sunil Dutt[16].  Mr Singh and Dr Sing appeared on behalf of QVCC at the hearing of the proceeding.  Mr Singh affirmed the affidavit discussed below under the subheading Mr Singh’s affidavit[17].

The minutes, under the heading, “QVCC Hall Project Update”, in part, read:

President requested members who are able to, to provide a loan of $10,000.00 to QVCC for a period of one or two years with interest free so that the Samaj can meet the construction costs. The following members volunteered to provide the loan - Mr Jitendra Deo $10,000.00 for two years, Mr Lalta Prasad $10,000.00 for one year and Mrs Nrmala Ray $10,000.00 for two years.

(Emphasis added);

  1. (b)
    minutes of the meeting of the executive committee of APSQ held on 18 February 2018.  The persons present at the meeting included Mr Deo, Mr Singh, Mr Hari Chand, Dr Singh, Mr Dick Sen[18], and Mr Sunil Dutt.  The minutes record discussion about a bank loan to fund the construction of the community centre and “... various fundraising strategies to raise funds for loan repayments within the required time frame ...”;
  2. (c)
    minutes of the meeting of the executive committee of APSQ held on 8 April 2018.  The persons present at the meeting included Mr Deo, Mr Hari Chand, Mr Sunil Dutt, Mr Singh, and Dr Singh.  The minutes record Mr Deo providing a report on the community hall project; and
  3. (d)
    minutes of the meeting of the executive committee of APSQ held on 3 June 2018.  The persons present at the meeting included Mr Deo, Mr Hari Chand, Mr Mul Chand, Mr Sunil Dutt, and Dr Singh.  The minutes record Mr Deo providing a report on the community hall project.
  1. [28]
    Item 10 to the Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit is an email sent by Mr Deo to members of QVCC on 1 March 2018.  Relevantly, the email reads:

...

I must thank all the members and well-wishers who have given us loan and donations so far towards the construction. We are still looking for two more members who can help us with loan of $5K each.

...

(Emphasis added)

  1. [29]
    QVCC’s financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2018 are item 11 to Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit.  The statements are not signed.  Note 3 to the financial statements, headed “Share Agreement Loan”, lists the Dr Padarath for $5,000.00 in 2018.
  2. [30]
    A current and historical company search of QVCC as of 20 September 2018 is also annexed to Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit.  It lists as current and former directors and secretaries of QVCC:

Current directors

  • Dr Singh
  • Mr Dick Sen
  • Mr Sunil Dutt
  • Mr Deo

Current secretary

  • Mr Deo

Previous directors

  • Mr Mul Chand
  • Mr Singh

Previous secretary

  • Mr Hari Chand
  1. [31]
    Dr and Mrs Padarath give notice of their intention to call Mr Deo to give evidence “... as a signatory on the Loan Papers (Item 1) ...”[19] and Mr Rakesh Singh, “... ATP Tax & Finance, Financial Statement 2018 ...”

Mr Singh’s affidavit

  1. [32]
    Mr Singh, in his affidavit, complains Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit was not served on QVCC.  Why he did not ask the Tribunal or Dr and Mrs Padarath to provide it with a copy of the affidavit is unclear.  Notwithstanding, he responds to Dr and Mrs Padarath’s claim, in detail.
  2. [33]
    He attacks the integrity of Mr Deo.  In effect, he alleges he has conspired with former members to make false claims against QVCC.  The former members, it is said, have “... taken the bait ...”.  Otherwise, the very serious allegation is not particularised.[20]
  3. [34]
    Mr Singh further asserts several agreements were forged, again a very serious allegation.[21]  The assertion is founded on unsigned copies of agreements filed in the Tribunal and, subsequently, the filing of signed copies of the documents.  The filing of unsigned copies of the agreements and the subsequent filing of signed copies of the documents, however, does not necessarily evidence forgery.  In any case, it is not suggested Dr and Mrs Padarath’s loan agreement was forged.
  4. [35]
    QVCC again asserts Mr Deo was without authority to enter the loan agreement.[22]  The money paid by Dr Padarath to QVCC, it is said, was a donation.[23]

Mr Deo’s evidence

  1. [36]
    Mr Deo was called by Dr and Mrs Padarath to give evidence.
  2. [37]
    He stated in evidence he had the authority of the board of directors of QVCC to obtain loans from members to fund the construction of the community centre and to enter the loan agreements.  He referred to the minutes tendered in evidence.
  3. [38]
    QVCC obtained a bank loan but could not service the loan.  He went back to the committee.  The committee authorised him to send the emails.  They were sent to all members.
  4. [39]
    Mr Deo was cross-examined by Mr Singh.

Exhibits

  1. [40]
    Seven exhibits were tendered and accepted in evidence by the Tribunal.  They are:
  1. (a)
    exhibit A: Email sent by Mr Deo to members of QVCC on 9 February 2019.  Relevantly, the email reads:

As you all are aware that the construction work has begun, and we urgently require funding. Most of the pledges are paid, but few members will have to catch up.

There is still a shortfall, and due to provision for two storey building there are extra costs.

In the last executive meeting we have decided to raise funds quickly so the building construction keeps progressing.  With the available funds we have completed the BA (building application) and have enough to pay for all framing (trusses & walls), and aluminium doors and window which needs to be ordered now so it is ready in time for installation.

We need quick funding therefore it was suggested that we raise $100,000 through interest free loans from members and we can pay them back in two years time.  As you know the funds are still coming through but at its pace, so we cannot wait for that to come and hold off building.

If you are able to contribute and provide the loan for 24 months interest free up to $10,000 it will be very much appreciated.  So far we have myself, Mr & Mrs Vijendra Rai and Mr & Mrs Lalta Prasad.  We need 7 more members help.

(Emphasis added);

  1. (b)
    exhibit B: Minutes of the meeting of the executive committee of APSQ held on 4 February 2018.  The persons present at the meeting included Mr Deo, Mr Hari Chand, Dr Singh, Mr Singh, and Mr Sunil Dutt.  The minutes, under the heading “QVCC Hall Project Update”, in part, read:

President requested members who are able to, to provide a loan of $10,000.00 to QVCC for a period of one or two years with interest free so that the Samaj can meet the construction costs.  The following members volunteered to provide the loan - Mr Jitendra Deo $10,000.00 for two years, Mr Lalta Prasad $10,000.00 for one year and Mrs Nrmala Ray $10,000.00 for two years.

(Emphasis added);

  1. (c)
    exhibits C1 and C2: Two versions of the minutes of the meeting of the executive committee of APSQ held on 18 February 2018.  The relevant persons present at the meeting and the relevant contents of the minutes are referred to in paragraph [27](b) of these reasons for decision.  In exhibit C1, one sentence reads, “The President advised that he had done the calculations with the builder and even with 4 members providing a loan of $10,000 each a further $100,000 will be required to complete the building after all the pledges and donations.”  In exhibit C2, the same sentence reads, “The President advised that he had done the calculations with the builder and a further $100,000 will be required to complete the building after all the pledges and donations so far.”  It is unnecessary to determine which minutes accurately record what was said at the meeting;
  2. (d)
    exhibit D: Email sent by Mr Deo to members of QVCC on 22 February 2018.  The email, in part, reads as follows:

In regard to funding, I am proposing Mahayaj for Sunday 8th April, and hopefully raise $20K, like last year, we will have to try our level best on this.

As you are aware that we are $100K short after going through final figures, and it was unfortunate that we spent $70K on plans, Engineers, Council fees to get this project approved, and initial quote by town planner was $33K, and its double so this took part of the budget.  Also, E.C had taken decision after my proposal to make provisions for this building to be extended to two storeys.  This took $50K more, therefore we were short of $83K, and with bit more adjustments we are $100K short.

The E.C approved that we request for interest free loan from the members for two years, and we pay them back within that period.  So far we have managed to get $60K.  (Mr & Mrs Vijendra Rai, Mr & Mrs Lalta Prasad, Mr & Mrs Murrari Lal, Mr & Mrs Sandeep Kumar, Mr & Mrs Jitendra Deo, Mr &. Mrs Rakesh Singh $5K and Anonymous $5K.  So we still need 4 or more members to help us with the loan.

Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 222The E.C. also approved that in the case we are unable to get enough funding then I will mortgage one my investment house and take loan from bank to overcome this funding.  The only thing is that the bank will charge interest and also fees, which we will have to pay.

I am sure you all agree that no interest option is best, so if you are in position to help out please let me know, even $5K is good enough, there will be written agreement signed between you and QVCC.  We need $40K more, 8 members/well wishers $5K will get us over the line.  I can assure you that funds will keep coming, but at a slow pace, but we need funds now, and as you are aware that it does not take much time to build here in Australia as most of building components come prefabricated, therefore, builder said we should get it done in next few months.

(Emphasis added);

  1. (e)
    exhibit E: Email sent by Mr Deo to members of QVCC on 23 February 2018.  The email, in part, reads as follows:

I hope you all received my previous email, and this is just follow up from yesterday’s email.

You may be aware that E.C approved that we request for interest free loan from the members for two years, and we pay them back within that period.  So far we have managed to get $60K.  (Mr & Mrs Vijendra Rai, Mr & Mrs Lalta Prasad, Mr & Mrs Murrari Lal, Mr & Mrs Sandeep Kumar, Mr & Mrs Jitendra Deo, Mr&. Mrs Rakesh Singh $5K and Anonymous $5K.

After the email I had calls and emails from 3 members who have contributed towards the loan.  The loans were provided by these members Mr Ram Padarath $5K, Mr Manoj Sharma $5K, and by a very dedicated member who wants to be anonymous $5K.  After this contribution of $15,000 yesterday the loan needed is $25,000.00.

...

Please do let me know if you can do so, and its matter of another 5 members contributing loan of $5K, and this will get us over the line.  Looking forward for your timely support.

...

(Emphasis added);

  1. (f)
    exhibit F: Email sent by Mr Deo to members of QVCC on 25 February 2018.  The email, in part, reads as follows:

The interest free loan of $100K which was requested from members has reached $90K since and after further request made last week Thursday 22.  Sabha needed from the members loan of $100K, Interest free for two years.

...

As you can see the target is almost met; just need another two members to help us out contributing loan of $5K ...

...

(Emphasis added); and

  1. (g)
    exhibit G: Notes to the financial statements of QVCC for the year ended 30 June 2018.  Under the heading, “Share Agreement Loan”, the notes list Dr Padarath for $5,000.00 in 2018.

Discussion

Issues

  1. [41]
    The issues to be determined by the Tribunal in this proceeding, as they were in the proceedings previously heard by the Tribunal[24], may be summarised in the following terms:
  1. (a)
    does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceeding;
  2. (b)
    was the money paid by Dr Padarath to QVCC a loan, or a donation;
  3. (c)
    did Mr Deo have the authority of QVCC to enter the loan agreement; and
  4. (d)
    is the loan agreement enforceable?

Loan agreement

  1. [42]
    The parties to the loan agreement are described in clause 1 in the following terms:

The Lender is an individual member of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of Queensland (APSQ) and the Borrower is Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd.  The Director and Secretary is authorised to represent the Borrower in executing this Agreement.

  1. [43]
    Importantly, clauses 2 and 3 of the loan agreements provide:

Loan Amount and Interest

  1. The Lender promises to loan $5,000 AUD to the Borrower and the Borrower promises to repay this principal amount to the Lender without any interest.

Payment

  1. The loan shall be paid to the lender by 2 years’ time from the date the full amount of $5,000 is transferred into the Borrowers nominated account. (Emphasis added)
  1. [44]
    As the Tribunal has found in the earlier proceedings, the effect of the agreement is clear.  The lenders, here Dr Padarath, promise to loan $5,000.00 to QVCC interest free.  QVCC promises to repay the loan within two years.
  2. [45]
    The loan agreement has been signed by Dr Padarath as lender and Mr Deo for QVCC as borrower, but not by Mrs Padarath.

Jurisdiction

  1. [46]
    QVCC asserts the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceeding.  It relies on the ex-tempore decision of the Tribunal in Singh v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd[25].  There, on the evidence available to it, the Tribunal decided the share agreement was invalid.  Whilst there was discussion about jurisdiction in the context of a claim under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Tribunal did not decide it was without jurisdiction.
  2. [47]
    The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide a minor civil dispute.[26]  Minor civil dispute is defined in the dictionary in schedule 3 to the QCAT Act.  Relevantly, it includes a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money of up to the prescribed amount.  In Hill v Berghofer[27], Alan Wilson J, then President of the Tribunal, said:

A ‘debt or liquidated demand’ is, as the Deputy President explained in Ziegeler t/a Ziegco Pty Ltd v Recochem Incorporated[28], one where the amount is determined and, in effect, beyond dispute as to how it is calculated.[29]  If the amount depends upon assessment by the court or tribunal, it is not liquidated.

  1. [48]
    The prescribed amount is $25,000.00.[30]
  2. [49]
    The claim by Dr Padarath, in our opinion, falls within the definition of minor civil dispute.  The assertion is rejected.

Were the monies paid by Dr Padarath to QVCC a loan, or a donation?

  1. [50]
    The evidence the money paid by Dr Padarath to QVCC was a loan, not a donation, is overwhelming, and we so find.  It includes the documents annexed to Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit, the sworn evidence of Dr and Mrs Padarath and Mr Deo and the exhibits accepted in evidence by the Tribunal.  There is no satisfactory evidence the money paid was a donation.
  2. [51]
    Other members may have made donations or gifted loans.  Dr Padarath, however, did not do so.

Did Mr Deo have the authority of QVCC to enter the loan agreement?

  1. [52]
    As the Tribunal said in Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Ors[31], the answer to the question turns on whether Mr Deo, as agent for QVCC, had the actual, either express or implied, or apparent authority to enter the loan agreement for QVCC.
  2. [53]
    The relevant sections of the Corporations Act and the principles applicable to determining whether an agent has authority are set out in the reasons for decision in Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Ors[32].  Having regard to the whole of evidence in this proceeding and applying the same principles, we find Mr Deo had the express actual authority of the board of directors of QVCC to enter the loan agreement.
  3. [54]
    Alternatively, the directors, as a board, stood by while Mr Deo entered the agreement with the consequence it granted, by implication, actual authority to enter the agreement.

Is the loan agreement enforceable?

  1. [55]
    As we have found, Mr Deo had the authority of the board of directors of QVCC to enter the loan agreement for QVCC.  The principal amount of the loan was repayable without interest within two years.[33]  It was not repaid within the time stipulated or at all, despite demand.  It follows Dr Padarath is entitled to the relief sought.
  2. [56]
    Even if we are wrong and the agreement is unenforceable, there is more than sufficient evidence of the purpose for which the money was advanced by Dr Padarath to QVCC and the terms on which it is repayable.  The invalidity of the agreement does not render the money a donation and it is recoverable by Dr Padarath in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties.

Earlier decision

  1. [57]
    The earlier decision[34] relied on by QVCC is distinguishable on the evidence before the Tribunal hearing and deciding the proceeding.  It is of no assistance to QVCC.
  2. [58]
    Further, and in any case, the decision is not binding on this Tribunal.

Summary of findings

  1. [59]
    In summary, taking into consideration the whole of the evidence before it, including the material filed by the parties, the oral evidence, and the submissions by the parties, the Tribunal finds as follows:
  1. (a)
    the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceeding;
  2. (b)
    the executive committee and board of directors of QVCC agreed to borrow money from members interest free for a term of two years to fund the construction of the community centre;
  3. (c)
    on 11 April 2018 Dr Padarath lent to QVCC $5,000.00 interest free for two years;
  4. (d)
    on 11 April 2018 Dr Padarath as lender and Mr Deo for QVCC as borrower signed the loan agreement;
  5. (e)
    the money paid by Dr Padarath to QVCC was paid for the purpose stated by Dr Padarath, it was not a donation;
  6. (f)
    Mr Deo had the express actual authority of the board of directors of QVCC to enter the loan agreements.  Alternatively, the directors, as a board, stood by while Mr Deo entered the agreement with the consequence it granted, by implication, actual authority to enter the agreement; and
  7. (g)
    the term of the loan has ended.  It has not been repaid, despite demand.
  1. [60]
    It follows Dr Padarath is entitled to the order sought by him.

Decision

  1. [61]
    The decision of the Tribunal is that QVCC pay to Dr Padarath $5,123.20, $5,000.00 repayment of the money lent by him to QVCC together with $123.20 the fee on filing the application in the proceeding, within 14 days of this order.

Footnotes

[1]Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Ors (MCDO 60589/20) (heard on 22 November 2022); Pal v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Anor (MCDO 60617/20) (heard on 22 November 2022); Deo v Singh & Anor (MCDO 524/21) (heard on 23 November 2022); Prasad v Singh & Anor (MCDO 523/21) (heard on 24 November 2022).

[2] See paragraphs [23] – [31] of these reasons for decision.

[3] See paragraphs [32] – [35] of these reasons for decision.

[4] (supra)

[5] (supra)

[6] See paragraph 1 of the Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit.

[7] Item 1 to Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit.

[8] Item 1B to Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit.

[9] Item 2 to Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit.

[10] See paragraph 1 of Dr and Mrs Padarath’s affidavit and item 4.

[11] Appointed as a director on 14 July 2014 and the secretary on 4 August 2014.

[12] A director from 14 July 2014 until 4 August 2014.

[13] The secretary from 14 July 2014 until 4 August 2014.

[14] Appointed as a director on 23 July 2014.

[15] A director from 14 July 2014 until 4 August 2014.

[16]  Appointed as a director on 23 July 2014.

[17] See paragraphs [32] – [35] of these reasons for decision.

[18] Appointed as a director on 23 July 2014.

[19] See paragraph 9 of Mr Singh’s affidavit.

[20] See paragraph 4 of Mr Singh’s affidavit.

[21] See paragraphs 10 and 11 4 of the Mr Singh’s affidavit.

[22] See paragraph 13 of Mr Singh’s affidavit.

[23] See paragraph 15 of Mr Singh’s affidavit.

[24]Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Ors (MCDO 60589/20). Pal v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Anor (MCDO 60617/20).

[25]  (supra).

[26] Section 11 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

[27] [2011] QCATA 34, at [7].

[28] [2010] QCATA 78.

[29]Spain v Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand Ltd (1923) 32 CLR 138.

[30]Prescribed amount is defined in the dictionary in schedule 3 to the QCAT Act.

[31] (supra).

[32] See paragraphs [70] – [74] of the reasons for decision in Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (supra). See also sections 126 and 127 of the Corporations Act, Junker v Hepburn [2010] NSWSC 88, per Hammerschlag J at [39] – [48], and Colin R Price & Associates Pty Ltd v Four Oaks Pty Ltd (supra), per Moshinsky J at [279].

[33] Clauses 2 and 3 of the loan agreement.

[34]Singh v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (MCDO 970/20, decided on 18 May 2021). See also Prasad v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QCATA 174.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2023] QCAT 222

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    LeMass, Scott-Mackenzie

  • Date:

    31 May 2023

Appeal Status

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

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Colin R Price & Associates Pty Ltd v Four Oaks Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 764
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] FCA 764
Hill v Berghofer [2011] QCATA 34
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCATA 34
Cite 2 - [2011] QCATA 34
Junker v Hepburn [2010] NSWSC 88
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] NSWSC 88
Cite 2 - [2010] NSWSC 88
Prasad v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre [2022] QCATA 174
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCATA 174
Cite 2 - [2022] QCATA 174
Spain v Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand Ltd. (1923) 32 CLR 138
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1923) 32 CLR 138
Cite 2 - (1923) 32 CLR 138
Ziegeler t/a Ziegco Pty Ltd v Recochem Incorporated [2010] QCATA 78
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCATA 78
Cite 2 - [2010] QCATA 78

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

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.