SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
CMF Projects Pty Ltd v Riggall & Anor [2014] QCA 318
PARTIES:
CMF PROJECTS PTY LTD
ACN 114 539 212
(appellant)
v
BRIAN NOEL MANSON RIGGALL
(first respondent)
JANE REIMAN RIGGALL
(second respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 4459 of 2014
DC No 4085 of 2013DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
2 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
17 September 2014
JUDGES:
Holmes, Gotterson and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
Appeal allowed.1.
Vary Order 1 made on 29 April 2014 to read:2.
statement of claim and paragraphs 4(d), 10 and 11 of the reply and paragraphs 1, 3(b) and 4 of the answer to the amended counterclaim be struck out.”“Paragraph 7, 8, 9 and 12 of the amended
Set aside Order 2 made on 29 April 2014 and substitute the following order:3.
“There be no order as to costs.”
Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis except those costs with respect to Grounds 2(a) and (c) in the notice of appeal filed on 8 May 2014.4.
Order that the appellant pay the respondents’ costs of Grounds 2(a) and (c) in the said notice of appeal on the standard basis.5.
CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – RECOVERY ON QUANTUM MERUIT – IN GENERAL – where the home owner respondents entered into an agreement with the builder appellant to renovate the former’s home – where the contract was a “cost plus contract” for the purposes of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld) (“DBCA”) – where the appellant carried out the work between 10 June 2011 and 2 May 2012 – where the respondents made payments on 10 progress claims totalling $1,938,932 – where in October 2013 the appellant commenced proceedings against the respondents for an outstanding sum of $182,252 – where the respondents defended the action on the basis that the agreement was unenforceable for non-compliance with the DBCA – where the appellant filed an amended statement of claim pleading quantum meruit – where the learned primary judge struck out the amended statement of claim – whether the provisions of the DBCA preclude an action based on quantum meruit
PROCEDURE – COSTS – POWERS OF COURT – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where the learned primary judge ordered the appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the application on the indemnity basis – whether the quantum meruit argument was unreasonably maintained
Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld), s 3, s 30, s 55(3), s 55(4), s 84
Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364; [2006] HCA 32, applied
Gemini Nominees Pty Ltd v Queensland Property Partners Pty Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 139; [2007] QSC 20, reversed
PACD Pty Ltd v…
Continue reading CMF Projects Pty Ltd v Riggall
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- CMF Projects Pty Ltd v Riggall [2014] QCA 318
- Case
- [2014] QCA 318
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the Domestic Building Contracts Act precludes a claim for quantum meruit and if the primary judge's order for costs on an indemnity basis was justified. The court had to determine if the Domestic Building Contracts Act's provisions prevented the appellant from recovering the outstanding amount under a quantum meruit claim. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the primary judge was correct in ordering the appellant to pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis.
The court found that the Domestic Building Contracts Act does not preclude a claim for quantum meruit, and the primary judge's order for costs on an indemnity basis was not justified. The court held that the Domestic Building Contracts Act allows for claims based on quantum meruit, and therefore, the appellant could recover the outstanding amount through such a claim. Furthermore, the court found that the primary judge should not have ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis, as the quantum meruit argument was not unreasonable.
The appeal was allowed, and the court varied the orders made by the primary judge. The court struck out specific paragraphs of the statement of claim and counterclaim and set aside the order for costs on an indemnity basis. Instead, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs, and the respondents were to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal on the standard basis, except for the costs related to specific grounds in the notice of appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of those specific grounds on the standard basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed.1.
Vary Order 1 made on 29 April 2014 to read:2.
statement of claim and paragraphs 4(d), 10 and 11 of the reply and paragraphs 1, 3(b) and 4 of the answer to the amended counterclaim be struck out.”“Paragraph 7, 8, 9 and 12 of the amended
Set aside Order 2 made on 29 April 2014 and substitute the following order:3.
“There be no order as to costs.”
Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis except those costs with respect to Grounds 2(a) and (c) in the notice of appeal filed on 8 May 2014.4.
Order that the appellant pay the respondents’ costs of Grounds 2(a) and (c) in the said notice of appeal on the standard basis.5.
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.