A L Builders Pty Ltd v Fatseas & Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read
CITATION: A L Builders Pty Ltd v Fatseas & Anor [2014] QCATA 171
PARTIES: A L Builders Pty Ltd
(Applicant/Appellant)
v
Nicholas Fatseas
Tricia Fatseas
(Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER: APL156-14
MATTER TYPE: Appeals
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Senior Member Oliver
Member Howe
DELIVERED ON: 9 July 2014
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: 1.    Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:

EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where application to determine a preliminary issue before hearing of the substantive proceeding – where determination of the application involved the exercise of discretion having regard to the circumstances of the case – where application dismissed – whether the tribunal erred in the exercise of discretion

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 3, 28 and 146

House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499;
Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v. The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 at 627;
Rodgers v Rodgers (1964) 114 CLR 608
Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australia Mutual Providence Society (1999) 217 ALR 495;
Re Cotton Crops Pty Ltd [1988] 1 QD R 482; CBS Productions Pty Ltd v O’Neill (1985) 1 NSWLR 601

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. The parties to this appeal are involved in a complex building dispute. The dispute relates to building work carried out by the applicant at the respondents’ premises on the Gold Coast.

  2. One of the issues at the heart of the dispute is whether the parties entered into a fixed price contract or a costs plus contract. Depending on the finding as to the type of contract that governed the legal relationship between them, certain consequences would flow. However, even if it was determined to be a costs plus contract, consideration would be necessary with respect to compliance with s 55 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld).

  3. The substantive proceeding had been listed for hearing early this year however, prior to the hearing, the applicant filed an application asking the Tribunal to determine some preliminary issues. They were:

    (a)Whether the contract between the applicant and the respondents was a fixed price contract or a costs plus contract;

    (b)The relevant terms of the contract in so far as they bear upon the rights of the parties as relevant in the proceedings;

    (c)Which of the alleged defects in the house building, the subject of the proceedings, remain in issue as a consequence of any determinations referred to in (a) and (b) above.

  4. The application was opposed and on 21 March 2014 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the applicant’s application.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. On 4 April 2014 the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal. The grounds of appeal contend generally, that the learned Member erred in the exercise of his discretion in not ordering a ‘trial’ of the preliminary issues; was wrong and contrary…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read A L Builders Pty Ltd v Fatseas & Anor and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] QCATA 171
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of A L Builders Pty Ltd v Fatseas & Anor involved a dispute between the plaintiff, A L Builders Pty Ltd, and the defendants, Fatseas and another party. The plaintiff sought to determine a preliminary issue before the hearing of the substantive proceeding, focusing on the exercise of discretion by the tribunal in dismissing the application. The tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for determining the preliminary issue was challenged on the grounds that it involved an erroneous exercise of discretion. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal where the tribunal's decision was scrutinised for any procedural or substantive errors.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's application to determine a preliminary issue. The court examined whether the tribunal had appropriately considered the relevant circumstances and whether there were any errors in the tribunal's assessment of those circumstances. The court also considered whether the tribunal's decision was rational and justifiable in light of the evidence and arguments presented.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal held that the tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application. The court found that the tribunal had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case and had not erred in its assessment of those circumstances. The tribunal's decision was rational and justified based on the evidence and arguments before it. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the tribunal's decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the tribunal's decision to dismiss the application to determine a preliminary issue. The tribunal's exercise of discretion was found to be correct, and no errors were identified in the tribunal's assessment of the circumstances. As a result, the final order of the Court of Appeal was to dismiss the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.