abh wrote:
>
> I just had a hearing with RACQ in the Small Claims Tribunal and they
> objected on jurisdictional grounds saying that it was an indemnity matter
> and they were not a trader under the Act.
> Has anyone any feedback on this
What you say is that the RACQ objected on jurisdictional grounds. You
don't state if they succeeded or not with their objection. The
magistrate would have ruled on it.
The sell "products" called "policies" - Hmmm... sure as hell sound
like "traders" to me. In any event it is a matter of contract, and a
monetary claim on that contract. I don't see why it isn't within the
jurisdiction - provided it doesn't exceed the monetary limit.
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
The tribunal does not have to keep records of any hearing nor does it have to give
any reason for any decision it makes. This (optional only) policy -IS- entirely and
arrogantly supported by the Chief Magistrate. The referees appear to be able to
make any decision that their mood suits them irrespective of any facts offered and
behave in any inappropriate manner they think fit without any fear of reprimand
whatsoever while knowing full-well that the Queensland government will not require
them to answer for their actions.
It makes a farce of the whole (non) legal system. The tin-pot amateur show seems be
be run by cowboys (and cowgirls).
veritas