QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND 
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Zhou Lim Pty Ltd ATF the Zhou Lim Trust v The Body Corporate for Miami Pacific CTS 3029 [2023] QCAT 87	
PARTIES:	zhou Lim Pty ltd ATF the zhou lim family Trust	

(applicant)	

	v	
	the body corporate for miami pacific cts 3029	

(respondent)	

APPLICATION NO/S:	APL261-20	
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals	
DELIVERED ON:	13 March 2023	
HEARING DATE:	On the papers	
HEARD AT:	Brisbane	
DECISION OF:	Member Carrigan	
ORDERS:	The Application for leave to appeal or appeal filed by Zhou Lim Pty Ltd ATF the Zhou Lim Family Trust on 19 August 2020 and received by the Tribunal on 24 August 2021 is dismissed. 	
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – leave to appeal required – minor civil dispute – no question of general importance – no reasonably arguable case of error – whether any substantive relief is available – whether any substantive actual injustice has occurred
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 26, s 142(3)(a)
Benson v Ware (2012) QCATA 24 at paragraph 11.	
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)	

	

	

	

REASONS FOR DECISION
[1]	Zhou Lim Pty Ltd ATF the Zhou Lim Family Trust seeks leave to appeal or appeal the Tribunal’s decision made on 24 July 2020.
Background
[2]	Zhou Lim Pty Ltd (the Appellant) is the Trustee of the Zhou Lim Family Trust who appears to be the caretaker or a service contractor for the Body Corporate for Miami Pacific CTS 3029. (the Body Corporate). 
[3]	In August 2018 the Appellant filed an Application for a minor civil dispute in the Tribunal claiming $1709.73 for various petty cash claims alleging that amount was owed by the Body Corporate. 
[4]	On 9 October 2018 the Application was heard by the Tribunal at Southport. The Body Corporate submits that the Tribunal Member ruled that the Appellants travel expenses are its expenses of conducting the Caretakers and Managers contract. They also submit that the Member ordered expenses claimed by the Appellant required the supply of the “original invoice” and an expense spreadsheet or scanned invoices with white out areas and missing dates was not acceptable. The Tribunal made the following orders:
(a)	the Applicant to provide original copies of all invoices for which a claim is made to the Respondent;
(b)	the Respondent to reimburse the Applicant within 14 days for agreed expenses.
[5]	On 22 October 2018 the Appellant sent an email to a Body Corporate requesting it to acknowledge receipt of original receipts for a number of claims totalling $1709.73
[6]	On 25 October 2018 a representative of Body Corporate sent an email to the Appellant’s representative advising that the following claims were rejected: 
(a)	the purchase of potting mixture/fertiliser was for the Appellant’s own plants, not the Body Corporate’s, and those expenses were deducted from the claim. 
(b)	the claim for Tribunal filing fees were not part of the order of 9 October 2018 and those expenses along with travel expenses and other damages claimed would be removed from its claim.
(c)	the claim for a key safe is not a Body Corporate expense as it relates to the Appellants operating its letting business.
These deductions reduced the Appellants claim to $1319.21 and a request was made for the Appellant to provide all original receipts for these expenses and the Body Corporate would reimburse those expenses.
[7]	On 22 January 2019 the Appellant sent an email to the Body Corporate demanding that its claims to be reimbursed be paid in full “straight away”.
[8]	On 23 January 2019 the Body Corporate representative sent an email to the Appellant stating that claims for which original documents have been provided were paid and that as soon as the Appellant provides the originals for any unpaid claims then reimbursements can be made.
[9]	The Appellant contends that the Body Corporate has not paid its claims from May 2017 to October 2018 notwithstanding the Body Corporate’s claim that they had been paid.
[10]	On 12 June 2020 the Appellant filed an Application for miscellaneous matters in the same proceedings as the previous minor civil dispute application seeking the following orders:
I would like the court to force the respondent to comply with the order dated 9 October 2018 and pay the Applicant the amount of $1,709.73 plus interest charges
[11]	On 24 July 2020 this further application was heard by the Tribunal at Southport when the following order was made:
No amount is payable by the Respondent to the Applicant because no agreement was reached between the parties as required by order 2 of the Decision of the Tribunal dated 9 October 2018
[12]	The Appellant says that it did not receive that decision until 11 August 2022.
[13]	On 19 August 2020 the Appellant filed in the Tribunal an Application for leave to appeal or appeal the decision of the Tribunal made on 24 July 2020. The appellant sought an order vacating the orders made by the Tribunal on 24 July 2020.
Relevant Principles for Granting of Leave to Appeal.
[14]	The Tribunal’s jurisdiction requires that leave to appeal be sought for an appeal about a decision in a proceeding for a minor civil dispute.
[15]	The decision of the Tribunal made on 24 July 2020 was in minor civil disputes proceedings 586/18. The appellant requires the leave of the Tribunal to appeal that decision.
[16]	In Benson v Ware the Tribunal considered an application for leave to appeal and appeal. Member Howard (and which the Deputy President agreed) referred to the following considerations in respect of leave to appeal:
 Leave to appeal will ordinarily only be granted where there is some question of general importance upon which further argument, and a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, would be to the public advantage; or, there is a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision and a reasonable prospect that the applicant would obtain further substantive relief. Another question sometimes asked is: is leave necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the applicant, caused by some error?
Appellants Grounds of Appeal.
[17]	In the Application for leave to appeal the Appellant says that this is “a simple case” relating to its claim that the Body Corporate did not pay petty cash claims from May 2017 to October 2018 in circumstances where the Body Corporate has asserted those claims have been paid. The Appellant asked that the Tribunal request the Body Corporate to provide evidence of the paid claims from May 2017 to October 2018 and pay the appellants unpaid petty cash claims within 14 days.
[18]	The Appellant seeks orders vacating the Tribunal’s order made on 24 July 2020 and in addition seeks the following orders:
(a)	the Body Corporate to provide evidence of payment made to the petty cash claims listed the in exhibit “E”;
(b)	the Body Corporate to pay within 14 days the unpaid petty cash claims listed in exhibit “E) plus interest; and
(c)	the Body Corporate to pay all expenses incurred in this claim.
[19]	The Body Corporate’s submits that the Appellants Application should be dismissed on the basis:
(a)	the Appellant failed to comply with a number of Directions made by the Tribunal relating to service of the Application and other documents; and
(b)	the Application is:
(i)	confusing;
(ii)	difficult to read and interpret; and
(iii)	does not raise any grounds as to why an Application for leave to appeal or appeal should be sought.
[20]	While the Body Corporate submissions deal with factual matters relating to the petty cash claims by the Appellant, it nevertheless submits that there are no proper grounds for appeal on a question of fact or of law. That no grounds have been shown as to why the Application for leave to appeal ought to be granted.
[21]	The Appellant responded to the Body Corporate’s submissions and asserted that:
The order made by the Tribunal on 24 July 2020 was conducted by telephone and is confusing in that it relies upon agreement between the parties as to the amount owing. It abdicates the decision-making role of the Tribunal to the parties and is rightly appealed.
Otherwise, the Appellants submissions refer to disputed facts that arose in the earlier proceedings and then seeks to amend its claim to $2,567.00.
[22]	The Tribunal’s order that the Appellant be reimbursed by the body corporate “within 14 days for agreed expenses” was made on 9 October 2018. No appeal was lodged against that order. The Appellant then subsequently sought to enforce that order by an Application for miscellaneous matters filed on 12 June 2020 in which it seeks the following directions:
I would like the court to force the respondent to comply with the order dated 9 October 2018 and pay the applicant the amount of $1704.73 plus interest charges.
[23]	The Tribunal’s order dated 24 July 2020 (which is the subject of this Application for leave to appeal) dealt with that Application for miscellaneous matters and found that there was no evidence of any amount payable and agreed between the parties as required by the Tribunal’s 2018 order. No judgement could be given for the Appellant on 24 July 2020.
[24]	The hearing on 24 July 2020 was conducted by telephone, apparently due to Covid 19 restrictions. Apart from some evidence about one or more documents being filed in the Tribunal with an incorrect proceeding reference, there is no evidence to suggest that those proceedings were in any other way confusing. The Tribunal was able to sort out any residual inaccurate Tribunal proceeding numbers on documents filed. It was the Appellant’s who approached the Tribunal on 24 July 2020 to enforce the earlier order of 9 October 2018. The Appellant made no challenge to that earlier order and sought to rely on its terms to enforce its various petty cash claims for $1704.73. It is only now that the Appellant has lost the proceedings on 24 July 2020 that it seeks to raise a new argument that in some way the earlier Tribunal order abdicates the decision-making role of the Tribunal. The Appellant does not provide any facts to show that in some way raising this new ground of argument comes within the usual exception that it is bound by the way it conducted the earlier proceedings. The Appellant is not entitled in this appeal proceeding to now raise for the first time an argument not previously raised previously before the Tribunal. The Tribunal for these reasons rejects the Appellant’s submissions made in its response filed on 16 November 2021.
[25]	The grounds of leave to appeal and appeal relied upon by the Appellant do not demonstrate the existence of any grounds requiring further argument or decision. The grounds do not raise any error or reasonable prospect that Appellant would obtain any substantive relief to that which is already been ordered in the preceding. No error has been demonstrated in the earlier decision of the Tribunal and it has not been demonstrated that it is necessary to correct any substantial injustice.
[26]	Having regard to these above principles and considerations that the grounds for leave to appeal establish for the above reasons there is no proper basis for the grant of leave to appeal. The Tribunal refuses to grant Appellant’s Application for leave to appeal.
[27]	Even assuming that leave to appeal was granted (which is not the case here) the Appellants appeal lacks any basis upon which it could properly challenge the Tribunal’s order of 24 July 2020. Rather, the Appellant seems to be using these appeal procedures as a further means to enforce claims against the Body Corporate rather than to deal with whether there is any substantive matter on which to challenge the Tribunal’s order of 24 July 2020. The appeal is without merit.
Order
[28]	For the reasons set out above the Tribunal dismisses the Appellant’s Application for leave to appeal or appeal filed at Southport on 19 August 2020