Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shearman (No 6) - [2025] ACTSC 483

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shearman (No 6)
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 483
Hearing Date:	13 to 29 October 2025
Decision Date:	29 October 2025
Before:	Muller AJ
Decision:	See [8].
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – building dispute – non-appearance of self-represented litigant –contents of medical certificate insufficient – directions made regarding further detail of medical condition from medical practitioner
Cases Cited:	UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 5) [2019] NSWLEC 107
Parties:	Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd ( Plaintiff) Leigh Shearman (First Defendant) Debra Shearman ( Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel WDB Buckland ( Plaintiff) Self-represented ( Defendants)
Solicitors MV Law ( Plaintiff) Self-represented ( Defendants)
File Number:	SC 417 of 2022

MULLER AJ:

Introduction

This matter was listed before me today for the continuation of a hearing that commenced on 13 October 2025.
There was no appearance by Ms Shearman. A short history in that regard is as follows:
(a)The matter was originally listed for a three-week hearing commencing on 13 October 2025.
(b)Prior to the hearing commencement, the defendants had indicated that although self-represented up until that time, there would be representation by Counsel at the hearing.
(c)On the first day of hearing Ms Shearman attended on behalf of the defendants, represented by Mr Yin of Counsel. At the commencement of the second day of hearing Mr Yin advised that his brief to appear had been withdrawn and he played no further active part in the hearing. Thereafter, Ms Shearman has conducted the defence of the claim as a self-represented litigant on behalf of both defendants.
(d)On 23 October 2025 in the course of her cross examination of Ms McNabb, one of the plaintiff’s witnesses, Ms Shearman notified me of her inability to continue as she was experiencing a migraine headache. She indicated that the headache had commenced on the prior day, forcing her to take medication immediately following the conclusion of that hearing day and to retire to bed. Ms Shearman asserted that she had then risen at 4am on 23 October 2025 to continue her preparation, but that she was too unwell to continue further on the day. I adjourned the Court until 10am on 24 October 2025.
(e)In the afternoon of 23 October 2025 Ms Shearman provided to the Court and to the plaintiff’s solicitor a medical certificate from Dr Cameron Evans who appears to be a General Practitioner at the Holt Medical Centre. Dr Evans certified that “Mrs Deborah Shearman has a medical condition and will be unfit for work/Court or any administration from 23 October 2025 to 24 October 2025, inclusive”.
(f)On that basis, I adjourned the hearing until 10am on Monday 27 October 2025. Ms Shearman attended court on that day and proceeded to engage in cross examination of two of the plaintiff’s witnesses throughout the course of the hearing day with no overt sign of incapacity.
(g)The hearing was scheduled to continue at 10am on 28 October…

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 Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shearman (No 6) 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: [2025] ACTSC 483
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Classic Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd filed a claim against Shearman, a self-represented litigant, in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, seeking compensation for a building dispute. Shearman failed to appear for the hearing without providing adequate notice or a satisfactory medical certificate to justify his absence. The tribunal had to determine whether Shearman's non-appearance was justified and whether his medical certificate was sufficient to warrant an adjournment. Additionally, the tribunal considered whether it should make any directions for Shearman to obtain further medical detail to clarify his condition.

The tribunal considered the principles of procedural fairness and the requirements for a valid medical certificate under the relevant legislation. It noted that Shearman had not provided sufficient information about his medical condition to justify his absence, as the certificate did not detail the nature or severity of his health issues. The tribunal held that the certificate was insufficient and that Shearman's absence was unjustified. The tribunal concluded that Shearman had not met the threshold for a justifiable absence and that the matter should proceed in his absence. The tribunal also directed Shearman to obtain a more detailed medical certificate from his practitioner and to provide this information to the tribunal within a specified timeframe.

The tribunal ruled that Shearman's non-appearance was unjustified due to the insufficiency of the medical certificate provided. It ordered Shearman to furnish a more comprehensive medical certificate within ten days, detailing the nature and severity of his medical condition. If Shearman failed to comply with this direction, the tribunal warned that it might proceed with the hearing in his absence and make any orders it considered appropriate. The tribunal reserved the right to dismiss the claim if Shearman did not provide the required medical details or appear at a subsequent hearing.

ORDERS:
1. Shearman is directed to provide a more detailed medical certificate within ten days of the date of this decision.
2. If Shearman fails to provide the required medical certificate within the specified timeframe, the tribunal may proceed with the hearing in his absence and make any orders it considers appropriate.
3. The tribunal reserves the right to dismiss the claim if Shearman does not provide the required medical details or appear at a subsequent hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [8].

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.