Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 82 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission  [2023] QCATA 66

PARTIES:
REECE JUSTIN ALLEN AND CHANTELL RENEE MARIA TAYLOR

(applicants/appellants)

v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL091-20

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR136-18

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

15 June 2023

HEARING DATE:

17 December 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.     So far as the appeal was on questions of law, the appeal is dismissed.

2.     Leave to appeal on questions of fact or mixed fact and law granted, limited to the issues of whether the appellants were in the circumstances entitled to terminate the building contract at common law for repudiation, or for sufficiently serious breaches of non-essential terms; otherwise leave to appeal refused.

3.     Appeal by leave dismissed.

4.     The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, on the scale appropriate for a matter in the District Court of Queensland, unless within twenty-eight days from the date of this decision the appellants provide to the associate to the Deputy President and to the respondent submissions in writing as to why such order should not be made. 

5.     If such submissions are provided, the respondent may provide submissions in response to the associate and to the appellants within twenty-eight days from receipt of the appellants’ submissions. 

6.     Subject to any further directions, the question of costs will then be decided without an oral hearing in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – POWER TO SUSPEND OR DETERMINE – termination under contract – termination at common law – whether right to terminate arisen – whether substantial breach of contract – whether builder repudiated – whether substantial breaches of non-essential terms whether right to claim on statutory insurance

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 147(2)
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) Part 5

Advance National Services Pty Ltd v Daintree Contractors Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 270
Aurizon Network Pty Ltd v Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 163
Botros v Freedom Homes Pty Ltd [2000] 2 Qd R 377
Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd [2022] QCA 266
Bundanoon Sandstone Pty Ltd v Cenric Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 87
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404
CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] HCA 50, (2019) 268 CLR 76
Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1
DCT Projects Pty Ltd v Champion Home Sales Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 117
Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] VSC 99
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
EMClarity Pty Ltd v BSO Network Inc [2022] QCA 177
Ergon Energy Corporation…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission 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
[2023] QCATA 66
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Allen, sought to appeal against the decision of the respondent, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. The appellants alleged that the Commission had wrongfully terminated their building contract, and the Commission had wrongfully refused their claim on statutory insurance. The dispute was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and the matter was appealed to the District Court of Queensland.

The legal issues in the case were whether the appellants had the right to terminate the building contract at common law, and whether the respondent had wrongfully refused the appellants' claim on statutory insurance. The court had to determine whether the respondent had repudiated the contract, and whether there were sufficiently serious breaches of non-essential terms to allow for termination. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the respondent had wrongfully refused the appellants' claim on statutory insurance.

The court found that the appeal on questions of law was dismissed, and leave to appeal on questions of fact or mixed fact and law was granted, limited to the issues of whether the appellants were in the circumstances entitled to terminate the building contract at common law for repudiation, or for sufficiently serious breaches of non-essential terms. The court found that the appellants were not entitled to terminate the building contract at common law, and that the respondent had not wrongfully refused the appellants' claim on statutory insurance. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

In summary, the court found that the appellants did not have the right to terminate the building contract at common law, and that the respondent had not wrongfully refused the appellants' claim on statutory insurance. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. So far as the appeal was on questions of law, the appeal is dismissed.

2. Leave to appeal on questions of fact or mixed fact and law granted, limited to the issues of whether the appellants were in the circumstances entitled to terminate the building contract at common law for repudiation, or for sufficiently serious breaches of non-essential terms; otherwise leave to appeal refused.

3. Appeal by leave dismissed.

4. The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, on the scale appropriate for a matter in the District Court of Queensland, unless within twenty-eight days from the date of this decision the appellants provide to the associate to the Deputy President and to the respondent submissions in writing as to why such order should not be made.

5. If such submissions are provided, the respondent may provide submissions in response to the associate and to the appellants within twenty-eight days from receipt of the appellants’ submissions.

6. Subject to any further directions, the question of costs will then be decided without an oral hearing in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32.

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.