| CITATION: | Bakker & Kramer v Richards Projects Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 99 |
| PARTIES: | Jan Bakker and Anne Kramer (Appellants) |
| v | |
| Richards Projects Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL338-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | 12 March 2014 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member O’Callaghan Member Burke |
| DELIVERED ON: | 28 April 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The Appellants’ appeal on the ground that they were denied natural justice in the presentation of their defence in application BDL232-12 is allowed. 2. The decision of the Tribunal in relation to application BDL232-12 is set aside. 3. Application BDL232-12 is to be returned to the Tribunal for reconsideration with the hearing of any additional material relevant to the proceedings. 4. The Appellants’ application for leave to appeal on the ground that there has been an error of fact in the Member’s decision is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEALS – Question of law – Natural justice – Whether party afforded natural justice in the presentation of its defence LEAVE TO APPEAL – Errors of fact – Whether decision-maker made errors of fact in interpretation of expert evidence Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28, s 29, s 95, s 142(1), s 142(3)(b), s 143(2)(b), s 147(2) Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr Jan Bakker and Ms Anna Kramer represented by Mr Bakker |
| RESPONDENT: | Richards Projects Pty Ltd represented by Mr Richards |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Nature of the Proceedings and Jurisdiction
This is an application pursuant to s 142(1) and s 142(3)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (“QCAT Act”) for leave to appeal and, if given, appeal against a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in its jurisdiction relating to building matters.
Pursuant to the application filed 8 August 2013, the Appellants, Jan Bakker and Anna Kramer (“Mr Bakker and Ms Kramer”) have sought leave to appeal, or appeal, the reasons for decision of the Tribunal delivered on 26 July 2013 (“the decision”) on the following grounds:
The Member made several mistakes about the technical side of our case and his own interpreting of facts.
The Member did not allowed (sic) us to bring our case forward and defend it.
The dispute, the subject of the decision, arose out of a Master Builders contract dated 4 June 2010 entered into between Mr Bakker and Ms Kramer, as owners, and the Respondent, Richards Projects Pty Ltd (“Richards Projects”), as contractor, for the construction of a new high set framed brick veneer dwelling at 10 Barton Street, Reedy Creek Queensland (“the site”) for the contract sum of $421,095.00 (“the contract”).
On 10 February 2012, Mr Bakker and Ms Kramer commenced proceedings in the Tribunal (“BDL048-12”) seeking the…
Continue reading Bakker & Kramer v Richards Projects Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bakker & Kramer v Richards Projects Pty Ltd [2014] QCATA 99
- Case
- [2014] QCATA 99
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal's handling of the proceedings denied Bakker and Kramer the opportunity to present their defence in accordance with natural justice and whether there was an error of fact in the Member’s interpretation of the expert evidence. The Appellants argued that the Tribunal did not allow them to address all the issues in dispute, particularly the amounts claimed by Richards Projects. They contended that they were prevented from presenting their case fully and were not given the opportunity to lead evidence about other matters, including a debt action. The Appellants also argued that the Member misinterpreted the expert evidence, which led to an incorrect understanding of the Appellants' position.
The court found that the Appellants were indeed denied natural justice in the presentation of their defence. The Tribunal did not allow Bakker and Kramer to address all the issues in dispute, particularly the amounts claimed by Richards Projects, and limited their opportunity to present their case. The court noted that the Member did not understand the full scope of the Appellants' defence and did not consider all the relevant material. Furthermore, the court held that the Appellants' application for leave to appeal on the ground of error of fact was not substantiated, as the Member’s interpretation of the expert evidence was not found to be erroneous.
The court allowed the Appellants’ appeal on the ground that they were denied natural justice in the presentation of their defence. The decision of the Tribunal in relation to the application was set aside, and the case was returned to the Tribunal for reconsideration with the hearing of any additional material relevant to the proceedings. The Appellants’ application for leave to appeal on the ground of error of fact was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Appellants’ appeal on the ground that they were denied natural justice in the presentation of their defence in application BDL232-12 is allowed.
2. The decision of the Tribunal in relation to application BDL232-12 is set aside.
3. Application BDL232-12 is to be returned to the Tribunal for reconsideration with the hearing of any additional material relevant to the proceedings.
4. The Appellants’ application for leave to appeal on the ground that there has been an error of fact in the Member’s decision is refused.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.