Bax Investments Pty Ltd v Richards - [2020] QCAT 404

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Bax Investments Pty Ltd v Richards & Anor [2020] QCAT 404

PARTIES:

BAX INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
(applicant)

v

TREVOR JAMES RICHARDS

(first respondent)

ELLEN HANNAH RICHARDS

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL187-17

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 October 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers, 8 October 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member P Roney QC

ORDERS:

1.   In respect of the preliminary application, it is declared that the Applicant is not estopped from maintaining the whole or any part of its claim for the balance of monies owed under a construction contract made between the Applicant and the Respondents by reason of the decision of this Tribunal dated 19 July 2019.

2.   The costs of the preliminary application are reserved.

3.   I decline to make any order in relation to the costs of any of the parties in respect of the respondents’ application for security for costs, and therefore each party will meet their own costs in that regard.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – costs – where a decision to refuse cover under the statutory insurance scheme was set aside – parallel or associated proceedings for debt recovery

ESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT – ANSHUN ESTOPPEL – determination as a preliminary issue
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – SECURITY FOR COSTS – where respondents applied for security for costs against a corporate applicant and abandoned the application after receipt of up to date financial information,- costs- who should pay the costs of the abandoned application for security- whether security for costs would have been ordered

Queensland Civil and Administrative

Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 109

Richards & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2019] QCAT 189
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853
Kuligowski v Metrobus (2004) 220 CLR 363
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Ramsay v Pigram [1968] 118 CLR 271
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Greg Black Constructions Pty Ltd v Brodie [2011] QCAT 671
Mobile Building System International Pty Ltd v Hua [2014] QCATA 94
Ultimate Property One Management Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for the Pivotal Point Residential CTS 33550 [2017] QCAT 424
Interlink Developments Pty Ltd v Kruger [2019] QCAT 219

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

In these Reasons I shall refer to the Respondents as Mr and Mrs Richards, and the Applicant as Bax Investments. There are two applications before the Tribunal which are required to be determined, and are determined in these Reasons.
The first arises out of a direction made by the Tribunal on 28 July 2020 in terms that there be determined as a preliminary issue ( “the preliminary issue”) in the proceeding, whether the Applicant is estopped…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bax Investments Pty Ltd v Richards 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: [2020] QCAT 404
Decision Date: 21 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bax Investments Pty Ltd (Bax) brought proceedings against Richards and others (the respondents) for the recovery of a debt relating to a construction contract. The respondents sought security for costs against Bax. After reviewing Bax's financial information, the respondents abandoned their application for security for costs. Bax then brought a preliminary application seeking a declaration that they were not estopped from pursuing their claim for the balance of monies owed. The court had to determine whether Bax was estopped by judgment or by Anshun estoppel from maintaining their claim and who should bear the costs of the abandoned application for security for costs. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal considered the legal principles surrounding estoppel by judgment and Anshun estoppel and concluded that Bax was not estopped from pursuing its claim. The court also declined to make any order regarding the costs of the abandoned application for security for costs, leaving each party to bear their own costs in that regard.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of the preliminary application, it is declared that the Applicant is not estopped from maintaining the whole or any part of its claim for the balance of monies owed under a construction contract made between the Applicant and the Respondents by reason of the decision of this Tribunal dated 19 July 2019.

2. The costs of the preliminary application are reserved.

3. I decline to make any order in relation to the costs of any of the parties in respect of the respondents’ application for security for costs, and therefore each party will meet their own costs in that regard.

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.

CITATION:	Bax Investments Pty Ltd v Richards & Anor [2020] QCAT 404
PARTIES:	BAX INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (applicant)
v
TREVOR JAMES RICHARDS (first respondent) ELLEN HANNAH RICHARDS (second respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	BDL187-17
MATTER TYPE:	Building matters
DELIVERED ON:	21 October 2020
HEARING DATE:	On the papers, 8 October 2020
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member P Roney QC
ORDERS:	1. In respect of the preliminary application, it is declared that the Applicant is not estopped from maintaining the whole or any part of its claim for the balance of monies owed under a construction contract made between the Applicant and the Respondents by reason of the decision of this Tribunal dated 19 July 2019. 2. The costs of the preliminary application are reserved. 3. I decline to make any order in relation to the costs of any of the parties in respect of the respondents’ application for security for costs, and therefore each party will meet their own costs in that regard.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – costs – where a decision to refuse cover under the statutory insurance scheme was set aside – parallel or associated proceedings for debt recovery ESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT – ANSHUN ESTOPPEL – determination as a preliminary issue PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – SECURITY FOR COSTS – where respondents applied for security for costs against a corporate applicant and abandoned the application after receipt of up to date financial information,- costs- who should pay the costs of the abandoned application for security- whether security for costs would have been ordered Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 109 Richards & Anor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2019] QCAT 189 Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853 Kuligowski v Metrobus (2004) 220 CLR 363 Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 Ramsay v Pigram [1968] 118 CLR 271 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589 Greg Black Constructions Pty Ltd v Brodie [2011] QCAT 671 Mobile Building System International Pty Ltd v Hua [2014] QCATA 94 Ultimate Property One Management Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for the Pivotal Point Residential CTS 33550 [2017] QCAT 424 Interlink Developments Pty Ltd v Kruger [2019] QCAT 219
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).