Legal Research
Cases
Capricorn Quarries Pty Ltd v Inline Communication Construction Pty Ltd

Capricorn Quarries Pty Ltd v Inline Communication Construction Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 7 December 2012 33 min read

Contents

On this page

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Capricorn Quarries Pty Ltd v Inline Communication Construction Pty Ltd & ors [2012] QSC 388

PARTIES:

CAPRICORN QUARRIES PTY LTD ACN 121 722 781

(applicant)

v

INLINE COMMUNICATION CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD ACN 090 583 869

(first respondent)

and

PHILIP DAVENPORT

(second respondent)

and

ADJUDICATE TODAY PTY LTD ACN 109 605 021

(third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 10771/12

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2012

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

1.It is declared that the adjudicator’s decision is void.

It is ordered that the first respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed.2.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERINNG AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – STATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS –where the first respondent claims it is entitled to progress payments – where the first respondent contracted with the applicant, a quarry operator, for the processing of quarry materials – where the first respondent used its own plant to process materials - whether road building materials are capable of constituting related goods and services – whether the work performed by the claimant was “construction work” or the supply of “related goods and services” under a “construction contract” entitling it to progress payments

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A
Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 10, s 11, s 12, s 13, s 17, s 18, s19, s 21, s 22, s 23, s 26, s 29, s 30, s31
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic)
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA)
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (Tas)
Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment Act) 2009 (ACT)
Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA)
Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act (NT)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), Part 5
Subcontractors’ Charges Act 1974 (Qld)
Contractors’ and Workmen’s Lien Acts 1906–1921 (Qld)

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568, cited
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27, cited
Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Limited (1993) 177 CLR 485, considered
Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport (2004) 61 NSWLR 421, referred
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, cited
Edelbrand Pty Ltd v H M Australia Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 31, considered
HM Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Edelbrand Pty Ltd trading as Domus Homes [2012] HCASL 156, referred
John Holland Pty Ltd v Schneider Electric Buildings Australia Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 159, cited
K & J Burns Electrical Pty Ltd v GRD Group (NT) Pty Ltd & anor [2011] NTCA 1, cited
Khoury v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1984) 165 CLR 622, considered
Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (2008) 232 CLR 635

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 Capricorn Quarries Pty Ltd v Inline Communication Constructi... 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: [2012] QSC 388
Decision Date: 7 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Capricorn Quarries Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Inline Communication Construction Pty Ltd, seeking to determine the validity of progress payment claims made by the respondent. The dispute arose from a contractual arrangement where the respondent, a construction company, engaged in the processing of quarry materials for the applicant, a quarry operator. The core issue in the case was whether the respondent was entitled to progress payments under statutory regulations that pertain to construction contracts.

The legal issues central to the case revolved around the classification of the work performed by the respondent. Specifically, the court had to ascertain whether the processing of road building materials by the respondent constituted 'construction work' or the supply of 'related goods and services' under a 'construction contract'. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the road building materials could be considered 'related goods and services' and, if so, whether this entitled the respondent to progress payments. These determinations were critical under the statutory provisions governing the entitlement to and recovery of progress payments.

The court concluded that the respondent's work did not qualify as 'construction work' or 'related goods and services' under the relevant statutes. Consequently, the respondent was not entitled to progress payments. The court found that the respondent's use of its own plant to process materials did not transform the nature of the work into 'construction work'. Furthermore, the court ruled that the adjudicator's decision in favour of the respondent was void. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application to be assessed.

In summary, the court declared the adjudicator's decision void and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs associated with the application. This decision underscores the importance of correctly classifying the nature of work in construction contracts to determine entitlement to progress payments under statutory regulations.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.It is declared that the adjudicator’s decision is void.

It is ordered that the first respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed.2.

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:	Capricorn Quarries Pty Ltd v Inline Communication Construction Pty Ltd & ors [2012] QSC 388
PARTIES:	CAPRICORN QUARRIES PTY LTD ACN 121 722 781 (applicant) v INLINE COMMUNICATION CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD ACN 090 583 869 (first respondent) and PHILIP DAVENPORT (second respondent) and ADJUDICATE TODAY PTY LTD ACN 109 605 021 (third respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 10771/12
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	7 December 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 November 2012
JUDGE:	Jackson J
ORDER:	1.It is declared that the adjudicator’s decision is void. It is ordered that the first respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed.2.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERINNG AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – STATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS –where the first respondent claims it is entitled to progress payments – where the first respondent contracted with the applicant, a quarry operator, for the processing of quarry materials – where the first respondent used its own plant to process materials - whether road building materials are capable of constituting related goods and services – whether the work performed by the claimant was “construction work” or the supply of “related goods and services” under a “construction contract” entitling it to progress payments Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 10, s 11, s 12, s 13, s 17, s 18, s19, s 21, s 22, s 23, s 26, s 29, s 30, s31 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA) Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (Tas) Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment Act) 2009 (ACT) Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act (NT) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), Part 5 Subcontractors’ Charges Act 1974 (Qld) Contractors’ and Workmen’s Lien Acts 1906–1921 (Qld) Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568, cited Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27, cited Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Limited (1993) 177 CLR 485, considered Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport (2004) 61 NSWLR 421, referred CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384, cited Edelbrand Pty Ltd v H M Australia Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 31, considered HM Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Edelbrand Pty Ltd trading as Domus Homes [2012] HCASL 156, referred John Holland Pty Ltd v Schneider Electric Buildings Australia Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 159, cited K & J Burns Electrical Pty Ltd v GRD Group (NT) Pty Ltd & anor [2011] NTCA 1, cited Khoury v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1984) 165 CLR 622, considered Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (2008) 232 CLR 635