GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Mansour
[2017] QMC 9
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
- GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Mansour[2017] QMC 9
- Add to List
GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Mansour[2017] QMC 9
GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Mansour[2017] QMC 9
MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Mansour [2017] QMC 9 |
PARTIES: | GOGETTA EQUIPMENT FUNDING PTY LTD (ACN 124 102 647) (Applicant) v ASHRAF MANSOUR (Respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | 5472 of 2016 |
DIVISION: | Applications |
PROCEEDING: | Originating Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 14 June 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 17 February 2017 |
MAGISTRATE: | Magistrate Hay |
ORDER: | The Magistrates Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine these proceedings. Proceedings adjourned to a date to be fixed for parties to be heard on dismissal of the application or, in the alternative, transfer to another court of competent jurisdiction. |
CATCHWORDS: | INFERIOR COURTS – MAGISTRATES COURT – JURISDICTION – POWER TO GRANT DECLARATORY RELIEF |
LEGISLATION: | Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld) Personal Property Security Act 2009 (Cth) |
CASES: | GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd a division of Silverchef Ltd v. Putohe [2016] QMC 21 Walsh v Toyota Finance Australia Ltd t/as Toyota Financial Services [2016] QDC 92 |
SOLICITORS: | Celtic Legal for the Applicant Litigant in Person for the Respondent |
- [1]The Applicant and Respondent entered into a rental agreement in respect of vehicles. The agreement expressly provides for the Respondent to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts in Brisbane, Queensland.
- [2]By originating application, the Applicant seeks the Court’s permission to seize the vehicles that are the subject of the agreement. In so doing it relies upon s. 123 of the Personal Property Security Act 2009 (Cth) (‘PPSA’).
Jurisdiction to grant relief sought
- [3]A preliminary point has been raised, at the Court’s instigation, concerning the Magistrates Court’s power to grant the relief sought i.e. a declaration that the applicant be permitted to seize the vehicles.[1]
- [4]Both oral and written submissions were received from the Applicant. The Applicant relies upon section 207 of the PPSA and section 49A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) in support of its contention that the Magistrates Court has statutory jurisdiction to make the orders sought. Despite invitation, the Applicant did not address the nature of the relief sought. In submissions it relied upon the unreported decision in GoGetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd a division of Silverchef Ltd v. Putohe[2] to support its contention that the issue of jurisdiction has previously been resolved by this Court and, therefore, these proceedings should proceed in the same manner. However, in that case the Court did not consider its power to grant the relief sought. Rather, that decision focussed on the geographical location of the court and jurisdictional questions flowing therefrom.
- [5]In Walsh v Toyota Finance Australia Ltd t/as Toyota Financial Services[3] this Court’s power to make these types of orders was considered by the District Court exercising its appellant jurisdiction. I consider myself bound by that decision. Following the District Court’s reasons in Walsh, I conclude that these proceedings constitute a personal action.[4]
- [6]It is, however, notable that these proceedings are not a personal action for the recovery of either monies owing or damages. In Walsh[5] beyond determining the question of whether the nature of the action was a personal action, the court did not address whether the words of section 4(a) of the Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld) (‘MCA’) enabled the Magistrates Court to make an order for the recovery of a chattel, as opposed to relief for money owing or damages arising from a personal action.
- [7]Having considered this point, I conclude that neither the MCA nor the PPSA confer upon the Magistrates Court power to grant the relief sought.
- [8]Section 4(a) of the MCA gives this Court jurisdiction over “every personal action in which the amount claimed[6] is not more than the prescribed limit…” [my emphasis]. Unlike the equivalent provision found in section 68 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld)[7], there is no express statutory power given to the Magistrates Court to grant relief in personal actions beyond relief for money owing or damages. Further even accepting that the common law personal action gives rise to an equitable right to the relief sought in these proceedings, section 4(c) of the MCA precludes the grant of any equitable relief by this Court beyond the recovery of a sum of money or damages. Indeed it is notable that, when read in its entirety, section 4 of the MCA limits all civil claims in this Court to monetary or damages claims.[8]
- [9]The PPSA relevantly confers jurisdiction upon this Court subject to the limitations placed upon it, namely the Court’s general jurisdictional limits including (but not limited to) limits as to locality and subject matter.[9]
- [10]Section 207 of PPSA does not expand this Court’s jurisdiction beyond that expressed in section 4 of the MCA, and therefore, is of no assistance to the Applicant on this point.
- [11]For these reasons, I find that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine personal actions for the type of relief claimed.
- [12]I wish to comment on the practical effect of this decision, noting the submissions made for the Applicant concerning the cost and inconvenience this conclusion will cause parties. I note that it is likely to also cause similar inconvenience to courts of competent jurisdiction who will have to now hear and determine applications for recovery of chattels valued significantly less than the monetary jurisdiction of those courts.
- [13]The general nature of relief capable of being granted by this Court has not kept pace with the increase of this Court’s jurisdiction over the years. No longer is this Court confined to hearing what are effectively small debt claims. The increase in the monetary jurisdiction of this Court over the years coupled with the inception of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal has, perhaps, altered litigants’ expectations of the nature of proceedings to be heard and determined by this court. Of course litigants could pursue these applications in other State or Federal courts, however they will be subjected to higher legal costs if they elect to do so. The applicant in these proceedings argues that these higher costs could render the pursuant of some matters uneconomical thereby subverting the intent of the PPSA.
- [14]These concerns could be addressed through the amendment of section 4(a) of the MCA to read: “every personal action in which the amount claimed, value or damage sought to be recovered is not more than the prescribed limit,…”. Such an amendment would broaden this Court’s jurisdiction for personal actions to enable the recovery of chattels, provided their value does not exceed the court’s monetary limit. For the same reasons, legislative review of this Court’s equitable jurisdiction under section 4(c) of the MCA may be considered timely.
- [15]I will hear from the parties on whether these proceedings should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction or transferred to some other court of competent jurisdiction.
Footnotes
[1] Thompson Australian Holdings Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission 148 CLR 150 at 163 “The parties consent cannot confer power upon the Court to make orders which the Court lacks power to make.”
[2] Unreported [2016] QMC 21
[3] Unreported [2016] QDC 92 at [17]-[25]; An unreported decision the District Court cited by the Magistrate in GoGetta (supra at [15]) albeit in that case only for the purpose of determining an issue unrelated to these proceedings.
[4] The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘personal action’ to include an action brought to enforce or recover a debt or personal duty or damages in lieu of it or damaged for an injury to person or property or for the specific recovery of or enforcement of a lien upon goods or chattels
[5] supra
[6] No amount is claimed in these proceedings.
[7] Section 68 of District Court of Queensland Act 1967 allows for all personal actions “where the amount, value or damage sought to be recovered does not exceed the monetary limit” [my emphasis]
[8] Subject to any express provision in any other legislation that confers jurisdiction upon this court: section 49A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld).
[9] Section 207 of the PPSA: See in particular Item 3.