Allen & Anor v Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 32 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Allen & Anor v Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QCATA 43
PARTIES: REECE ALLEN

(first applicant)
CHANTELL TAYLOR

(second applicant)

v
CONTRAST CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL181-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL219-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Allen QC, Deputy President

Member Traves

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal be granted.

2.   The appeal be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL - where applicant applied for leave to appeal and stay of a decision on an interlocutory application – where Tribunal below found jurisdiction established – whether error in finding s 77(2) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) complied with – whether error in the construction of the dispute resolution provisions in the contract – whether error in finding those provisions did not survive termination – whether error in finding provisions did not apply to disputes arising out of termination – whether error in finding Tribunal had the power to order a stay – whether denial of natural justice in reliance on a decision not yet accessible by the parties - whether error in refusing to grant a stay – whether leave to appeal or appeal should be allowed

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77; Schedule 1B, s32, s 45(1)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47, s 58, s 142(3)(a)(ii), s 145(2)

Austman Pty Ltd v Mount Gibson Mining Ltd [2012] WASC 202

Cook's Construction Pty Ltd v Stork Food Systems Aust Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 322
Day v Humphrey [2017] QCA 104
Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd v Wambo Coal Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 290
Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council v Four Seasons Construction Pty Ltd [1999] WASCA 144
Great Southern Loans v Locator Group [2005] NSWSC 438
Jamac Construction Group Pty Ltd v De Mol Investments Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 273
Kime v Klepper [2020] QCAT 207
La Macchia v Department of Housing and Public Works [2015] QCATA 143
Legal Services Commission v Baker [2005] QCA 482
Leonard v Hugh Reilly Real Estate [2020] QCATA 24
Pipeline Services WA Pty Ltd v ATCO Gas Australia Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 10
Redding v Simmons [2016] QCATA 100
Richmond v Moore Stephens Adelaide Pty Ltd [2015] SASCFC 147
The Illawarra Community Housing Trust Limited v MP Park Lane Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 751
Western Australian Land Authority v Simto Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 136

4D Electrical Qld v Greyburn Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 74

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Project Legal

Respondent:

Construct Law Group Pty Ltd

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal or appeal a decision made on 21 May 2020 refusing an interlocutory application…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Allen & Anor v Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) 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
[2021] QCATA 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Allen and another, appealed against the decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) in Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2). The dispute concerned the jurisdiction of QCAT and the interpretation of certain contractual provisions in relation to a construction project. The applicants sought leave to appeal the QCAT's decision on an interlocutory application and for a stay of that decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether QCAT correctly found that section 77(2) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) was complied with, whether there was an error in the construction of the dispute resolution provisions in the contract, whether those provisions survived the termination of the contract and applied to disputes arising out of the termination, whether QCAT had the power to order a stay, and whether there was a denial of natural justice in relying on a decision not yet accessible by the parties. Additionally, the court had to determine whether there was an error in refusing to grant a stay.

The court found that there were errors of law in the construction of clause 42 of the contract, which warranted the grant of leave to appeal. However, the Senior Member had assumed for the purposes of his decision that the clause survived termination and applied to the dispute. The court found no error in the exercise of the Senior Member's discretion to grant or refuse a stay. Therefore, the appeal was refused.

Accordingly, the orders made were that leave to appeal be granted, but the appeal itself be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal be granted.

2. The appeal be 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

We would add that, were we to exercise the discretion again, we would exercise it in the same way as the Senior Member and for like reasons.Conclusion The errors of law with respect to issue (b) and the proper construction of clause 42 warrant the grant of leave to appeal. That said, the Senior Member assumed for the purposes of his decision that the clause survived termination and applied to the dispute. He accordingly went on to consider whether, in those circumstances, to grant a stay. That was an exercise in his discretion and, for reasons we have outlined above, we find no error in the exercise of that discretion. Accordingly, the appeal is refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.