Boyle v Axis Contracting Pty Ltd

Case [2023] QCATA 139

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Boyle & Anor v Axis Contracting Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 139

PARTIES:
LAUREN BOYLE AND JOSHUA BRAIDEN 

(applicants)

v
AXIS CONTRACTING PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATIONS NOS:

APL378-22  and  APL 381-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATIONS NOS:

MCDO 60887-21 and MCDO 371-22

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

2 November 2023

HEARING DATE:       

13 October 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Dr J R Forbes
ORDERS:

(i)         Leave to appeal is granted;

(ii)        The appeal is allowed;

(iii)       The decision made herein on 1 November 2022 is set aside;

(iv)       The proceedings are remitted to the Registrar for retrial on a date to be fixed;

(v)        The question of costs is reserved to the primary tribunal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE –  whether reasons for primary decision adequate – where terms of contract left uncertain – decision where insufficiently explained – appeal allowed and proceedings remitted for retrial

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 121, s 122, s 142
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139

Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430

Branson v Repatriation Commission (1991) 23 ALD 600
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472

Drew v Bundaberg Regional Council [2011] QCA 359

Felton & Anor v Raine and Horne Real Estate [2011] QCATA 330

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378

JM v QFG and KG [2000] 1 Qd R 373
Osmond v Public Service Board of New South Wales [1984] 3 NSWLR 447

QUYD Pty Ltd v Marvass Pty Ltd  [2009] 1 Qd R 41; [2008] QCA 257
Seablest Pty Ltd (t/a Salamanca Executive Suites) v Smith (1996) 91 LGERA 1

Telstra Corporation v Arden (1994) 20 AAR 285 at 296; [1994] FCA 1239

Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480; [2013] HCA 43

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Mr J Richards for Axis Contracting Pty Ltd
Ms Lauren Boyle for the applicants

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

  1. At first instance these actions were consolidated and the same procedure is adopted here. The two applications for leave to appeal involve the same applicants, namely Lauren Boyle and Joshua Braiden. For ease and brevity of reference I shall refer to them collectively as “Boyle”.

  2. Boyle’s applications for leave feature identical grounds of appeal as set out below.[1]

    [1]         Paragraph [16] below.

  3. Boyle occupies a semi-rural property at Old Gympie Road, Glass House Mountains, about 80 kms north of Brisbane. On this property there is a dam. Boyle proposed to repair it and line it with plastic waterproofing. To that end she obtained a quotation from the respondent (‘Axis’), which advertises itself as providing ‘a broad range of services in the electrical, civil, project management and wider technical fields’, including ‘major resource projects’. 

    Axis engaged

  4. On 2 September 2021 Axis offered to perform for $17,073.55:

    Earthworks -…

Continue reading Boyle v Axis Contracting Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Boyle v Axis Contracting Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 139
Case
[2023] QCATA 139
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Boyle v Axis Contracting Pty Ltd, the appellant sought leave to appeal a decision made in the primary tribunal concerning a minor civil dispute. The nature of the dispute involved contractual terms that remained uncertain and a decision by the primary tribunal that did not sufficiently explain the reasoning behind it. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the reasons provided for the primary decision were adequate, particularly in light of the uncertain contractual terms.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the reasons given by the primary tribunal were adequate and whether the decision adequately addressed the uncertain terms of the contract. The Court had to consider whether the explanation provided by the primary tribunal was sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review and whether the decision appropriately dealt with the ambiguities in the contractual terms.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal found that the reasons provided by the primary tribunal were insufficient. The Court held that the primary tribunal had not adequately explained how it resolved the uncertainties in the contract, which was critical for a proper understanding of the decision. Consequently, the Court concluded that the primary tribunal's decision was insufficiently reasoned and could not be upheld. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the proceedings were remitted to the primary tribunal for retrial. The Court also reserved the question of costs to the primary tribunal to be determined on retrial.

Orders

Orders of the court

(i) Leave to appeal is granted;

(ii) The appeal is allowed;

(iii) The decision made herein on 1 November 2022 is set aside;

(iv) The proceedings are remitted to the Registrar for retrial on a date to be fixed;

(v) The question of costs is reserved to the primary tribunal.

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.