SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Bartlett v Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 119
PARTIES:
BRETT ANDREW BARTLETT
(applicant)
v
CONTRAST CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
ACN 100 835 934
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 9767 of 2014
QCATA No 332 of 2013
QCATA No 370 of 2013DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Application for Extension of Time Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
ORIGINATING COURT:
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal at Brisbane – [2014] QCATA 262
DELIVERED ON:
4 May 2016
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3 August 2015
JUDGES:
Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Allow the appeal.
3. Set aside orders 2 and 3 made by the Appeal Tribunal on 9 September 2014 and instead order as follows:
(2) Set aside the order made in the tribunal on 5 August 2013 and order instead that Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd is to pay Mr Bartlett the sum of $402,037.17, plus interest on that sum in an amount to be fixed by the Court.
4. Direct that, in the event that the parties do not agree upon the amount of interest, the parties file within 14 days a written submission limited to two pages as to the calculation and amount of interest.
5. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal, including the costs associated with the respondent’s notice of contention.
CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – GENERALLY – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where leave to appeal was filed one day late – whether an extension of time be allowed
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – GENERALLY – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where an error of law was made by the member at first instance – where the member of the QCAT Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal – whether the nature of the error of law caused an injustice requiring a grant of leave to appeal
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – GENERALLY – where the applicant contracted with a building company – where the applicant claims for contractually prescribed liquidated damages arising from a change to the date of practical completion – where the builder abandoned the works under the contract – whether the applicant’s claim to contractually prescribed liquidated damages succeeds
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 14(3), s 15(3)(a), s 100, s 102, s 151(2)(b)
Banque Commerciale SA (In liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; [1990] HCA 11, cited
Chandra v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2014] QCA 335, considered
Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2013] QCAT 322, related
Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2013] QCAT 399, related
Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2014] QCATA 262, related
Niall v Mangrove Housing Association Inc[2014] QCA 58,…
Continue reading Bartlett v Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bartlett v Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 119
- Case
- [2016] QCA 119
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court considered the consequences of the late filing of the application for leave to appeal and whether the lateness alone warranted refusal of leave. The Court further examined the nature and impact of the alleged error of law made by the Appeal Tribunal. In assessing whether the error of law was sufficiently serious to result in injustice, the Court weighed the potential impact on Bartlett if the error was not corrected. The Court noted that the Appeal Tribunal had made an error in law by misapplying the statutory framework for the calculation of liquidated damages.
The Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, finding that the late filing of the application did not preclude the appeal on the grounds of untimeliness. The Court concluded that the Appeal Tribunal's error of law was significant enough to warrant setting aside the Appeal Tribunal's orders and reinstating the original decision awarding liquidated damages to Bartlett. The Court ordered that Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd pay Bartlett the sum of $402,037.17, plus interest. In the event of disagreement over the amount of interest, the Court directed the parties to file written submissions within 14 days. The Court also ordered that Bartlett recover the costs of the application and appeal from Contrast Constructions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Allow the appeal.
3. Set aside orders 2 and 3 made by the Appeal Tribunal on 9 September 2014 and instead order as follows:
(2) Set aside the order made in the tribunal on 5 August 2013 and order instead that Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd is to pay Mr Bartlett the sum of $402,037.17, plus interest on that sum in an amount to be fixed by the Court.
4. Direct that, in the event that the parties do not agree upon the amount of interest, the parties file within 14 days a written submission limited to two pages as to the calculation and amount of interest.
5. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal, including the costs associated with the respondent’s notice of contention.
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.