Benarid Pty Ltd v Sarina Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd Summary

[2017] QCA 105

COURT OF APPEAL

MORRISON JA
PHILIPPIDES JA
McMURDO JA

Appeal No 13538 of 2016
DC No 93 of 2015

BENARID PTY LTD Applicant
ACN 011 043 351

SARINA CONSULTING ENGINEERS PTY LTD Respondent
ACN 118 273 304

BRISBANE

MONDAY, 29 MAY 2017

JUDGMENT

PHILIPPIDES JA: This application concerned an application for leave to appeal against the decision below. The only basis for leave was a factual error that was alleged, and possibly an error of law in that the factual error also included that there was no evidence to support the conclusion reached below. However, in the course of submissions, evidence was drawn to the attention of senior counsel, which supported the factual decision sought to be challenged.

On that basis, senior counsel quite properly conceded that he was unable to advance the contention that there was no evidence to support the factual decision reached below. Once that concession was made, counsel also quite properly accepted that the remaining dispute in relation to quantum could not support a grant of leave. In those circumstances, the application for leave is refused with costs.

MORRISON JA: I agree.

McMURDO JA: I agree.

MORRISON JA: The orders will be as Justice Philippides has announced. Thank you, gentlemen. Adjourn the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Benarid Pty Ltd v Sarina Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd involved an appeal seeking leave to challenge a lower court decision. The applicant, Benarid Pty Ltd, sought to appeal against the decision rendered by the respondent, Sarina Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd. The appeal was based on the contention that the lower court had made a factual error, and possibly an error of law, in reaching its decision without sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which consisted of Morrison JA, Philippides JA, and McMurdo JA.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the lower court had indeed made a factual error and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the decision. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the alleged error and the lack of evidence warranted the grant of leave to appeal. The lower court's decision was challenged on the basis that it had not properly considered certain evidence, which was brought to the attention of senior counsel during the course of the appeal.

The court found that, once the evidence was brought to the attention of senior counsel, it was clear that the evidence supported the lower court's factual decision. Consequently, senior counsel conceded that there was no basis to argue that the lower court's decision lacked evidentiary support. Furthermore, the court noted that the remaining dispute regarding the quantum of damages did not provide sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded against the applicant.

In summary, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding no merit in the applicant's contentions that the lower court had made a factual error or acted without sufficient evidence. The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Benarid Pty Ltd v Sarina Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established