Carter v HK Developments Pty Ltd - [2016] QCATA 65

CITATION:

Carter & Anor v HK Developments Pty Ltd [2016] QCATA 65

PARTIES:	Nathan Carter Damita Carter (Applicants/Appellants)
v
HK Developments Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL346-15

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member O’Callaghan
Member Howe

DELIVERED ON:

2 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Grounds of appeal – identification of errors of law by the Tribunal – s67 Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld) – penalty provision – entire contract - quantum meruit – assessment of damages – pleadings in the Tribunal

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld), s 67, s 69, s 70, s 71

Avilake Pty Ltd v Tucker and Anor [2012] QCATA 211
Commonwealth vAmann Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54
Constructions P/L v Stork Food Systems Aust P/L [2008] QSC 179
Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] All ER 176
Mertens v Home Freehold (1921) 2 KB 526
Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice(No. 2) (2010) 241 CLR 320
Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Batchelor (1983) 2 QdR 124
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1986) 162 CLR 221
Rana v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2011] FCAFC 80
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850
Rocci v Anor v Diploma Construction Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 18
Tan Hung Nguyen & v Luxury Design Homes Pty Limited [2004] NSWCA 178

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member O’Callaghan

I sat with Member Howe in this matter. I have had the benefit of reading his reasons in draft. I agree with his reasons, and his conclusions, and the orders he proposes.

Member Howe

Background

HK Developments Pty Ltd is a building contractor. Mr and Mrs Carter are property owners. The parties entered into a building contract in February 2010. The contract price was $670,000. Work commenced in March 2010. There were quite a few variations to the contract.
The parties fell out and on 4 February 2011 the builder gave notice to the owners purporting to suspend work under the contract. On 5 February 2011 the owners gave notice to the builder of intention to terminate the contract. On 16 February 2011 they terminated the contract.
The builder commenced proceedings in the Tribunal in March 2011 seeking payment of $67,000 as money owing for the completion payment under the contract, plus $21,793.06 for variations, plus interest and costs.
The owners filed a response and counter-application, then an amended response and counter-application. The owners sought an order that they were not liable to pay the final completion payment, and alternatively sought damages for breach of contract, liquidated damages for delay, interest and costs.
The matter was first heard in the Tribunal in September 2013 and April 2014. The learned Member hearing the matter ordered the owners pay the builder $79,841.45.
The owners paid that amount to…

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.

Continue reading Carter v HK Developments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Carter v HK Developments Pty Ltd [2016] QCATA 65
Case: [2016] QCATA 65
Decision Date: 2 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carter, a homeowner, appealed against a decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) in a dispute with HK Developments Pty Ltd, a building contractor. The primary issues revolved around the application of a penalty provision within the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld) and the assessment of damages under a quantum meruit claim. Carter argued that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the legislation and misapplied the principles of quantum meruit in assessing the damages awarded.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal correctly identified the errors of law as required by section 67 of the Act. It also needed to assess whether the Tribunal's approach to the penalty provision and the quantum meruit claim was legally sound. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented before the Tribunal and evaluated whether the Tribunal's findings were supported by the law and the evidence.

After a detailed analysis, the court found that the Tribunal had correctly identified the errors of law and appropriately applied the relevant legal principles. The court held that the Tribunal's interpretation of the penalty provision and its approach to the quantum meruit claim were consistent with the law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Tribunal was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

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.