QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Cochrane v Lees [2021] QCATA 74
PARTIES:
In APL307-19:
VINCENT COCHRANE (first applicant)
TAMARA COCHRANE
(second applicant)
v
DANIEL LEES (respondent)
In APL195-20:
DANIEL LEES
(applicant)
v
VINCENT COCHRANE
(first respondent)
TAMARA COCHRANE
(second respondent)APPLICATION NO/S:
APL307-19
APL195-20
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:
BDL249-18
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
15 June 2021
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Senior Member Brown
Member Howe
ORDERS: In APL307-19
1. The applications to adduce fresh evidence filed 1 April 2020 and 20 April 2020 are refused.
In APL307-19 and APL195-20
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. The appeal is allowed.
3. The decision of the Tribunal dated 24 October 2019 is set aside.
4. Vincent Cochrane and Tamara Cochrane must pay to Daniel Lees $3,918.13 within 28 days of the date of this decision.
5. The counter application by Vincent Cochrane and Tamara Cochrane is otherwise dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the applicants hired the defendant builder to build their new house and pool deck – where the applicants did not appear at the hearing – where the applicants sought to rely on a doctor’s certificate dated four months after the date of hearing to show reasonable excuse for not attending – where at first instance the applicants were ordered to pay a sum to the respondent – where the applicants apply to adduce photographs and additional documents – where these documents were available at the time of the initial hearing– whether the evidence should be adduced
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – RECOVERY ON QUANTUM MERUIT – IN GENERAL – where the applicants hired the defendant builder to build their new home and pool deck – where the home contract is an entire contract – where the contract for the pool deck is not an entire contract – where most of the building work complete – where defendant builder has not obtained approval for the building works as required under the contract – whether the builder is entitled to recovery on quantum meruit
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – CONSTRUCTION OF PARTIULAR CONTRACTS AND IMPLIED CONDITIONS – VARIATIONS – where the applicants hired the defendant builder to build their new house and pool deck – where the applicants claim that the variations are invalid as they are unsigned – whether the variations should be excluded from the calculation of damages
Acts Interpretation Act (1954) (Qld), s 14B
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), Sch 1B
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 147
Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176
Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (In Liq)(2008) 232 CLR 635
Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560
Tan Hung Nguyen v Luxury Design Homes Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 178
Thompson Residential Pty Ltd v Hart & Anor [2014] QDC…
Continue reading Cochrane v Lees
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cochrane v Lees [2021] QCATA 74
- Case
- [2021] QCATA 74
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal raised several legal issues. The first issue was whether the Cochranes could adduce further evidence in their appeal. The second issue was whether Lees was entitled to recover on quantum meruit. The third issue was whether the variations should be excluded from the calculation of damages. The court found that the Cochranes could not adduce further evidence as it was available at the time of the initial hearing. The court found that Lees was entitled to recover on quantum meruit, as most of the building work was complete, and Lees had not obtained approval for the building works as required under the contract. The court found that the variations should be included in the calculation of damages, as they were signed by the Cochranes.
The court held that the Cochranes could not adduce further evidence as it was available at the time of the initial hearing. The court held that Lees was entitled to recover on quantum meruit, as most of the building work was complete, and Lees had not obtained approval for the building works as required under the contract. The court held that the variations should be included in the calculation of damages, as they were signed by the Cochranes. The court held that the evidence of Lees at the hearing was that he had not paid the painter the amount of $700, however he was ‘was hoping to be able to claim it to give me the opportunity to pay him.’ The court held that the claim by Lees should be allowed. The court held that the Cochranes must pay Lees $700 in respect of the house contract, and $3,218.13 in respect of the pool deck contract. The court held that the applications to adduce fresh evidence were refused, and the counter application by the Cochranes was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
In APL307-19
1. The applications to adduce fresh evidence filed 1 April 2020 and 20 April 2020 are refused.
In APL307-19 and APL195-20
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. The appeal is allowed.
3. The decision of the Tribunal dated 24 October 2019 is set aside.
4. Vincent Cochrane and Tamara Cochrane must pay to Daniel Lees $3,918.13 within 28 days of the date of this decision.
5. The counter application by Vincent Cochrane and Tamara Cochrane is otherwise 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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.