ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL “GC” v “OC” & “OJ” (Civil Dispute) [2016] ACAT 125 XD 1459/2015 Catchwords: CIVIL DISPUTE – property damage claimed against a minor and a parent of the minor – intentional tort – trespass to goods - liability admitted by minor – liability contested by parent - quantum – evidentiary burden – costs – delay Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 16, 22, 39 Magistrates Court Act 1930 s 262 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 ss 42, 46, 48 Subordinate Legislation: ACT Court Procedure Rules 2006 r 277 Cases cited: Dryden v Orr (1928) SR (NSW) 216 Gorely & Anor v Codd & Anor [1967] 1 WLR 19 Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388 Smith v Leurs [1945] HCA 27 Surrey Insurance Co Ltd v Nagy Webster v Owners Units Plan No 3967 [2016] ACAT 58 List of Texts/Papers cited: Butterworths, Harold Luntz, Torts Cases and Commentary 7th ed. (2013) Francis Trindale & Peter Cane, The Law of Torts in Australia, Oxford University Press, 3rd ed. Tribunal: Presidential Member E Symons Date of Orders: 21 November 2016 Date of Reasons for Decision: 21 November 2016
REASONS FOR DECISION Background The applicant owned a residential property in the Australian Capital Territory (‘the premises’) at all relevant times. The applicant is the father of the first respondent and the second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. The first respondent is a minor. In August 2014 the second respondent obtained a Domestic Violence Order (‘the DVO’) for herself and the first respondent against the applicant. In May 2015, by consent and without admissions, the DVO was extended for a further period of 24 months. The first respondent entered the premises without the applicant’s consent and damaged some of the applicant’s property in March 2015. The first respondent was then aged 15 years. Criminal charges of damaging the applicant’s property were brought against the first respondent who pleaded guilty in the Children’s Court of the Australian Capital Territory in September 2015. The Magistrate found the offences proved and dismissed both charges. In October 2015 the applicant’s solicitors (‘the solicitors’) sent letters of demand to the first respondent and to the second respondent seeking $5,000 for the damage to the applicant’s property. The History of the Proceedings On 24 December 2015 the solicitors attempted to file a civil dispute application (‘the application’) in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) against the first respondent and the second respondent. Due to an underpayment of the filing fee the application was not accepted until 15 January 2016. In the application the solicitors had ticked the box identifying the type of application as:
opportunity to complete his secondary education and obtain employment. The Tribunal has determined that the first respondent be allowed a period of three months after his 18th birthday, until 1 March 2018, to pay the $320 and the filing fee. This way the first respondent will not have a judgment against him and his credit rating and reputation will not be affected. However, if the first respondent fails to make the payment by 1 March 2018, then the Tribunal will enter judgment against the first respondent and include an order that the first respondent also pay the filing fee and interest to the applicant from 19 May 2015, being the commencement date specified for interest in the Application, to 1 March 2018, calculated in accordance with the Court Procedure Rules 2006 and the filing fee. ……………………………….. Presidential Member E Symons HEARING DETAILS FILE NUMBER: XD 1459 of 2015 PARTIES, APPLICANT: GC PARTIES, FIRST RESPONDENT: OC PARTIES, SECOND RESPONDENT JO SOLICITORS FOR APPLICANT N/A SOLICITORS FOR FIRST RESPONDENT [first respondent’s solicitors] SOLICITORS FOR SECOND RESPONDENT N/A TRIBUNAL MEMBERS: Presidential Member E Symons DATES OF HEARING: 14 October 2016