Hortovanyi v Elias [2025] QCAT 575

[1] The applicant applies, pursuant to section 35(4)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ("QCAT Act"), for a review of the decision of the Principal Registrar to reject the applicant's application, filed as a minor civil dispute application pursuant to rule 10 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld). The minor civil dispute application was filed by the applicant on 6 December 2024. The application claimed $4000 from the respondent Peter Elias. The respondent is the secretary of the Avalon Apartments community title scheme 36246.

[2] The statement of claim set out in the application filed by the applicant claims the sum of $4000, together with interest thereon, arising from Adjudicator's orders made in two separate matters filed in the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management. Those applications are cited as Avalon Apartments [2024] QBCCMCmr 81, and Avalon Apartments [2023] QBCCMCmr 111. In each of those applications the present applicant's application was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the body corporate's costs fixed in the amount of $2000.

[3] In the application brought in this Tribunal, the applicant claims the total of the two costs orders made by the adjudicator ($4000), as alleged in the statement of claim contained within the present application, on the basis that the sum owed by the applicant pursuant to the two costs orders, "arose from the respondent's negligent breaches of statutory duties as Secretary...", detailed more particularly as "concealing lawyer engagements", failing to comply with legislation, "bad faith actions", failing to comply with the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), and failing to act in good faith.

[4] The applicant further alleges in the statement of claim that the respondent's conduct "constitutes negligence and bad faith" and is not protected by either section 101A of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), nor section 39 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).

[5] The statement of claim alleges that the "debt is liquidated", as "evidenced by formal adjudication orders". In that allegation it is apparent that the applicant has misconceived the nature of his claim. The claim, to the extent it can be made out, is for damages for breach of statutory and tortious duties. The applicant fixes the amount of the damages he claims ($4000) as the total of the cost orders.

[6] Stated shortly, a claim for a fixed sum is not necessarily a liquidated demand within the meaning of the QCAT Act.

[7] By letter dated 15 May 2025 the Registrar of the Tribunal (Civil, Administrative and Disciplinary Division) advised the applicant that his application was rejected under section 35(3)(c) of the QCAT Act on the ground that the application did not comply with the QCAT Act, an enabling act or the rules.

[8] As stated, the applicant filed his application as a "minor civil dispute". A minor civil dispute is defined in the Dictionary in Schedule 3 to the QCAT Act as being, relevantly, "a claim to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money up to the prescribed amount". The prescribed amount is defined in Schedule 3 as $25,000. No other definition of "minor civil dispute" in Schedule 3 would permit a claim for damages for negligence or breach of statutory duty.

[9] In his submissions filed on 10 June 2025 the applicant contended that:

a liquidated demand is "an amount which can be ascertained by calculation fixed by any scale of charges, or other positive data"... In Guzman v Bird [2021] QCAT 65 [6] QCAT clarified that a liquidated demand is "a sum of money that can be calculated by reference to a formula, schedule, or some other yardstick by which the debt or sum payable can be readily calculated.

I note that in Guzman v Bird, the sum which was claimed was a debt owing pursuant to monies advanced by Mr Guzman to Mrs Bird. Guzman v Bird was cited in Smith v Nelson [2023] QCATA 51.

[10] In the present matter the applicant's claim is for alleged breaches of duty, including allegations of bad faith. That is not a liquidated demand for debt or other sum fixed by a contract or yardstick.

[11] The minor civil dispute jurisdiction of this Tribunal does not extend to claims of the sort which the applicant seeks to prosecute against the respondent. An application filed as a minor civil dispute in the Tribunal must fall within the relevant definition in the Dictionary in Schedule 3 to the QCAT Act. The applicant's claim does not.

[12] I direct the Registrar to reject the applicant's application for a minor civil dispute, in accordance with section 35(6)(a) of the QCAT Act.