Default decision wiped out after adjudicator gave no reasons for refusing to set it aside (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

On 1 August 2025 Excavator Edge Pty Ltd started a minor civil dispute claim in QCAT for a minor debt. It asked for an order that Rui Yang Investments Pty Ltd pay it $9,483.17, said to be the balance owing for services it had provided.

Under rule 45 of the QCAT Rules, the company that is served with a claim has 28 days to file a response in the approved form. No response was filed. On 17 September 2025 Excavator Edge filed a request for a decision by default, which is a decision made without a hearing because the other side has not replied. With the request it filed an affidavit from a licensed field agent, who said she had served a sealed copy of the application on 2 August 2025 by prepaid express post with a tracking number, addressed to the company's registered office at Rochedale South, and attached an ASIC record confirming that registered address. On 26 September 2025 a delegate of the Tribunal's Principal Registrar made the default decision.

On 29 September 2025 Rui Yang Investments applied to set the default decision aside. It said a subcontractor, not it, had engaged Excavator Edge, that it had not authorised the work, and that it only learned of the claim from a Tribunal email on 25 September 2025. On 7 October 2025 an adjudicator refused that application. The adjudicator gave no reasons, either spoken or written.

The company then appealed. It repeated that it did not know about the claim until QCAT emailed it, that a third party contractor had engaged Excavator Edge, that it had no direct relationship with Excavator Edge and had given no instructions and had no contract or quotation with it, and that the work done was unnecessary. The appeal was decided on the papers under section 32 of the QCAT Act.

What each side wanted

Rui Yang Investments asked the Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal and for the default decision to be set aside, arguing it had never been properly served and had a real defence because there was no contract between it and Excavator Edge. Excavator Edge opposed the appeal, arguing that no substantial error of fact or law had been shown, and that the adjudicator had before her Australia Post tracking information, a photograph of the envelope containing the application and the field agent's affidavit, which it said was strong evidence that the claim had been properly served.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Tribunal granted leave to appeal against the decision in Q11636-25 made on 7 October 2025 and allowed the appeal. It set that decision aside and substituted a decision that the default decision made on 26 September 2025 is set aside.

The claim, Q11636-25, was sent back (remitted) to the Tribunal's Minor Civil Disputes List to be dealt with in the usual way, so the $9,483.17 claim is still to be decided on its merits.

Excavator Edge Pty Ltd was ordered to pay Rui Yang Investments Pty Ltd the appeal filing fee of $392.40 within 14 days of the date of the order.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

Because the case began as a minor civil dispute, the company first needed the Tribunal's permission to appeal under section 142 of the QCAT Act. The Appeal Tribunal said leave can be granted where there is an important point of law or a question of general public importance, or where an appeal is needed to correct a substantial injustice and there is a reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected.

The central problem was that no reasons were given. The Appeal Tribunal said the matters the adjudicator should have weighed included whether there was a good reason for not filing a response, how long the company took to apply to set the decision aside, the conduct and good faith of the party seeking the set aside, and whether the claimant would be prejudiced if the decision were set aside; most importantly, whether there was a good defence on the merits at first glance. Failing to consider those matters is an error of law. Quoting earlier Appeal Tribunal comments, the member noted that a tribunal which gives no reasons may invite the inference that there were no good reasons, and that without reasons a party cannot be confident the case was understood. The absence of reasons here led the member to infer capricious decision making, and to find that even if those matters had been considered, the refusal was unreasonable.

On the merits, the member said the facts before the adjudicator showed a good defence at first glance. It was telling that, although the company said there was no contract between the parties (no privity of contract), Excavator Edge had put on no evidence to answer that or to prove a contract existed. Older authority was cited for the point that a defendant with an apparently good ground of defence is not often refused the chance to defend, provided the claimant suffers no irreparable prejudice.

On service, the member accepted the law that saying you did not receive a document does not by itself displace service deemed to have happened under section 39A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, but noted that evidence of non-delivery, as opposed to non-receipt, can displace that presumption. The tracking record showed only delivery to an address in the suburb, not to the company's specific address, and the member took judicial notice that Australia Post deliveries, even registered post, are not infallible. The company had also applied promptly once it learned of the default decision, and Excavator Edge had not shown it would suffer significant prejudice. On that evidence the only reasonable decision was to set the default decision aside, and following an earlier decision the member considered it would be unfair for the company not to recover its appeal filing fee.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how QCAT applies the rules about default decisions. A default decision can be entered without a hearing once the response time in rule 45 has passed, so a claim that never reaches the right person can still turn into an order. It also shows that when a tribunal is asked to set a default decision aside, it is expected to turn its mind to set questions, including whether there is an apparent defence, and to say why it decided as it did; giving no reasons can itself be an error of law that an appeal can correct.

The decision also shows how service is treated. Posting a claim to a company's ASIC registered address can be enough for service to be deemed to have happened, and simply saying the document was not received does not undo that. Evidence pointing to non-delivery, rather than non-receipt, is treated differently, and here a tracking record that showed only delivery somewhere in the suburb did not prove delivery to the company's own address. Moving quickly once you learn of a decision, and being able to point to a real answer to the claim, were both treated as relevant.

In disputes of this kind, most people start with a written step before any tribunal paperwork: the business chasing payment sends a written demand, and a business that has been served with a claim files a written response setting out its defence. Only after that does the matter usually move to a tribunal application, or to an application to set aside or appeal a decision made without them.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a QCAT application. More decisions: QCAT cases and unpaid debts and invoices.

Source: Rui Yang Investments Pty Ltd v Excavator Edge Pty Ltd [2026] QCATA 147 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.