Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QMC
  3. 2017
  4. Silver Chef Rentals Pty Ltd v The Alliance of Congolese in the Northern Territory Gogetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Valamiou - [2017] QMC 8

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

Silver Chef Rentals Pty Ltd v The Alliance of Congolese in the Northern Territory Gogetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Valamiou[2017] QMC 8

Silver Chef Rentals Pty Ltd v The Alliance of Congolese in the Northern Territory Gogetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Valamiou[2017] QMC 8

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Silver Chef Rentals Pty Ltd v The Alliance of Congolese in the Northern Territory and others

Gogetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Valamiou and others [2017] QMC 8

PARTIES:

FILE 739/17

SILVER CHEF RENTALS PTY LTD

(Applicant)

v

THE ALLIANCE OF CONGOLESE IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

(Respondent)

FILE 1268/17

SILVER CHEF RENTALS PTY LTD

(Applicant)

v

ZAZA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

(Respondent)

FILE 5431/16

GOGETTA EQUIPMENT FUNDING PTY LTD

(Applicant)

v

CHRIS VALAMIOU

(Respondent)

FILE 748/17

GOGETTA EQUIPMENT FUNDING PTY LTD

(Applicant)

v

TARA SUNSHINE MCILWRAITH

(Respondent)

FILE 1459/17

GOGETTA EQUIPMENT FUNDING PTY LTD

(Applicant)

v

ROCCO PRINCI

(Respondent)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Originating applications for orders for seizure

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 June 2017

MAGISTRATE:

B Springer

ORDER:

Applications refused.  No orders as to costs.

Introduction

  1. [1]
    There are before the courts several originating applications seeking authority to seize various chattels.   They are identical in terms of the statutory basis relied on, namely the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (the PPSA).  That provides in section 123:

123 Secured party may seize collateral

  1. (1)
    A secured party may seize collateral, by any method permitted by law, if the debtor is in default under the security agreement.
  1. [2]
    The jurisdiction given to this court comes from section 207 of the PPSA. That is set out below. I have highlighted in bold italics the parts of particular relevance to the matter before me:

Division 2—Conferral of jurisdiction

207 Jurisdiction of courts

Jurisdiction is conferred on a court mentioned in an item in the following table with respect to a PPS matter, subject to the limits on the court’s jurisdiction (if any) specified in the item:

Jurisdiction of courts

Item

Court on which jurisdiction is conferred

Limits of jurisdiction

1

The Federal Court

No specified limits.

2

The Federal Circuit Court

The court does not have jurisdiction to award an amount for loss or damage that exceeds:

  1. (a)
    $750,000; or

 

  1. (b)
    if another amount is prescribed by the regulations—that other amount.

3

A superior court, or lower court, of a State or Territory

The court’s general jurisdictional limits, including (but not limited to) limits as to locality and subject matter, to the extent that the Constitution permits.

4

The Family Court

No specified limits.

  1. [3]
    By virtue of the Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (the MCA), this court has jurisdiction for every personal action in which the amount claimed is not more than the prescribed limit. In the proceedings before me, an order for seizure is sought.
  1. [4]
    As the Magistrates Court is a creature of statute, its jurisdiction is limited by the statute creating it, or by some other legislative provision.  The applicant also relies on section 49A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, which states:

If a provision of an Act, whether expressly or by implication, authorises a proceeding to be instituted in a particular court or tribunal in relation to a matter, the provision is taken to confer jurisdiction in the matter on the court or tribunal.

  1. [5]
    While the wording of that provision at first blush seems to have a wide application, the particular ascribing of jurisdiction by the PPSA does not give a blanket jurisdiction; the PPSA specifically limits the jurisdiction (as can be seen in the right hand column of the table in which the putative grant of jurisdiction is set out). 
  1. [6]
    I am aware of the decision of Smith DCJ in Walsh v Toyota Finance Australia Limited [2016] QDC 92.  His Honour there was dealing with an appeal relating to a provision under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 of the Commonwealth. His Honour referred to discussion in several decisions and reference material as to the nature of what constitutes a “personal action”, as that is referred to in the Magistrates Courts Act.  There are similar provisions in the PPSA to those in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 apparently giving this court jurisdiction. 
  1. [7]
    Judge Smith in Walsh states at paragraph [25] that in his view, “there was jurisdiction here for the Magistrates Court to make the orders it did as the recovery of possession of the property was within its general jurisdictional limit”.
  1. [8]
    Smith DCJ does not, on my reading of his reasons, consider the words “personal action” with the words following it, namely “in which the amount claimed is …”.  In my opinion, the proper construction of that phrase up to and including ‘amount claimed’ requires the whole of the phrase to be considered.  If I am correct on that construction, there must be an amount claimed.  There is no amount claimed;  the proceeding has been commenced by an originating application, but even were an amount also claimed, I have doubts that it could extend the jurisdiction to allow the seizure of the item.
  1. [9]
    By contrast, the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 in section 68 refers to the jurisdiction of that Court as including “all personal actions, where the amount, value or damage sought to be recovered does not exceed the monetary limit …” and specifically includes a claim for detention of chattels.
  1. [10]
    I have also been referred to a decision of my brother magistrate, Magistrate Simpson in the decision of GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Limited a Division of Silverchef Limited v Putohe [2016] QMC 21. That did not specifically address the issue of the jurisdiction to make orders as sought in the current applications but considered other matters in depth, albeit in a similar application. 
  1. [11]
    In my opinion, any claim brought in the Magistrates Court under its jurisdiction is limited to the jurisdiction specifically conferred.  That jurisdiction, in my view, is limited to money claims.  I am reinforced in that view by the other provisions in section 4 of the MCA which all require a money claim, even when the action is one in which an equitable claim is sought.  The proceedings before the court are not expressed to be, and are not, money claims. 
  1. [12]
    I understand the wish of the applicant to be able to bring applications such as these in a relatively low-cost court such as the Magistrates Court, particularly given the likely value of the items sought to be recovered will often be within the monetary limit of this court.  However, in the absence of a clearer granting of jurisdiction to specifically include seizure of chattels up to a stated value, I am not persuaded that this court has jurisdiction.  Legislative change to provide greater clarity is desirable.
  1. [13]
    The applications should be refused and, as there were no appearances in response to the applications, in my view it would be appropriate to make no order as to costs. However, it seems to me that if I make an order refusing the application that would dispose of the proceeding in its entirety, which may be problematic if the applicant wished to seek an order for transfer to the District Court under the Civil Proceedings Act 2011.  That provides in section 28:

Transfer because claim beyond jurisdiction

  1. (1)
    This section applies if the court in which a proceeding is pending (the relevant court) considers it does not have jurisdiction for the proceeding (other than because of a counterclaim).
  1. (2)
    If the relevant court considers another court has jurisdiction for the proceeding, the relevant court may, by order, transfer the proceeding to the other court.
  1. [14]
    I shall await submissions about the issue of transfer of the proceeding, whether to the District Court or whether to a Commonwealth court under the transfer provisions in the PPSA (sections 210-215).
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Silver Chef Rentals Pty Ltd v The Alliance of Congolese in the Northern Territory and others Gogetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Valamiou and others

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Silver Chef Rentals Pty Ltd v The Alliance of Congolese in the Northern Territory Gogetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Valamiou

  • MNC:

    [2017] QMC 8

  • Court:

    QMC

  • Judge(s):

    B Springer

  • Date:

    14 Jun 2017

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
GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Limited a division of Silverchef Limited v Putohe [2016] QMC 21
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QMC 21
Walsh v Toyota Finance Australia Ltd [2016] QDC 92
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QDC 92
Cite 2 - [2016] QDC 92

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Fin One Pty Ltd v Kucharski [2017] QMC 173 citations
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.