Coleman v Prentice - [2015] QSC 118

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Coleman v Prentice & Anor [2015] QSC 118

PARTIES:

JOHN W COLEMAN AND
DIANNE L COLEMAN
(Plaintiffs)

v
PETER PRENTICE
(First Defendant)
and
AGRIPOWER AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(ACN 132 823 226)

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC 189 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

5 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

17-18 November 2014 and 19-22 January 2015

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the amount of $265,531 and interest thereon to be determined.

2.   The counterclaim and the claim as against the first defendant are dismissed.

3.   I will hear the parties as to the quantification of interest and as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – RECOVERY – where the plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid invoices – where the plaintiff claims agreement was for payment of hours worked with payment terms of 7 days from invoice – where the defendants claim payment was subject to reconciliation of mined product – where the plaintiff claims unclaimed rent on leased storage facility – where the defendants deny entering lease for storage – where the plaintiff exercised a lien over stored product for unpaid monies

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – CONSTRUCTION OF PARTICULAR CONTRACTS AND IMPLIED CONDITIONS – DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT ON DEFAULT AND LIKE GROUNDS – where the plaintiff terminated the contract on account of unpaid invoices – where the defendant claims termination was unlawful – where the defendant counterclaims an amount for damages for loss of profit on mined product – whether the plaintiff was liable for any loss on account of unsaleable mined product – whether the plaintiff is liable for unaccounted for mined product

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – GENERAL – where the parties made an oral contract to perform road and mining works – where the plaintiff worked under the direction and supervision of a representative of the second defendant – where the defendant claims for damages for loss of profit caused by the plaintiff’s work

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – PARTIES – GENERALLY – where the first defendant was the director of the second defendant – whether the contract for works was made with the first defendant or second defendant

Mining and Quarrying and Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) s 23

Australian Energy Ltd v Lennard Oil NL [1986], cited
Winks v WH Heck & Sons Pty Ltd [1986] 1 Qd R 226, 238, cited
Roluke Pty Ltd & Anor v Lamaro Consultants Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] NSWCA 323, considered

COUNSEL:

Dr MA Jonsson, with S Williams for the Plaintiffs

PJ Favell for the First and Second Defendants

SOLICITORS:

Williams Graham Carman Solicitors for the Plaintiffs

TressCox Lawyers for the First and Second Defendants

Index
Heading  Page
A. Introduction  4
B. The dispute in summary  4
C. The issues  7
D. The facts  7
Mr…

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 Coleman v Prentice

Details

AGLC: Coleman v Prentice [2015] QSC 118
Case: [2015] QSC 118
Decision Date: 5 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Coleman v Prentice involves the plaintiff, Coleman, suing the defendants, Prentice and the company he directs, for recovery of unpaid invoices, claimed rent for a storage facility, and other related issues. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Coleman, an engineering contractor, asserts that an agreement existed for payment of hours worked with payment terms of seven days from invoice. The defendants counter that payment was contingent upon the reconciliation of the mined product. Coleman also claims for unclaimed rent on a leased storage facility, which the defendants deny leasing. Additionally, Coleman exercised a lien over stored product for unpaid monies.

The court had to determine whether the agreement was for payment of hours worked or contingent upon the reconciliation of mined product, the validity of the claimed rent for the storage facility, the legitimacy of the termination of the contract by Coleman, and the liability for any loss on account of unsaleable mined product. The court examined the oral contract for road and mining works and the direction and supervision under which Coleman worked. It also considered whether the contract was made with the director of the company or the company itself.

The court found in favour of Coleman, ruling that the agreement was for payment of hours worked with payment terms of seven days from invoice. The court dismissed the counterclaim and the claim against the first defendant, holding that the contract was with the second defendant. The court ordered judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the amount of $265,531 and interest thereon to be determined. The court also dismissed the counterclaim and the claim as against the first defendant. The court scheduled further hearings to address the quantification of interest and the allocation of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the amount of $265,531 and interest thereon to be determined.

2. The counterclaim and the claim as against the first defendant are dismissed.

3. I will hear the parties as to the quantification of interest and as to costs.

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:	Coleman v Prentice & Anor [2015] QSC 118
PARTIES:	JOHN W COLEMAN AND DIANNE L COLEMAN (Plaintiffs) v PETER PRENTICE (First Defendant) and AGRIPOWER AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 132 823 226) (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC 189 of 2010
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	5 May 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	17-18 November 2014 and 19-22 January 2015
JUDGE:	Henry J
ORDERS:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the amount of $265,531 and interest thereon to be determined. 2. The counterclaim and the claim as against the first defendant are dismissed. 3. I will hear the parties as to the quantification of interest and as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – RECOVERY – where the plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid invoices – where the plaintiff claims agreement was for payment of hours worked with payment terms of 7 days from invoice – where the defendants claim payment was subject to reconciliation of mined product – where the plaintiff claims unclaimed rent on leased storage facility – where the defendants deny entering lease for storage – where the plaintiff exercised a lien over stored product for unpaid monies CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – CONSTRUCTION OF PARTICULAR CONTRACTS AND IMPLIED CONDITIONS – DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT ON DEFAULT AND LIKE GROUNDS – where the plaintiff terminated the contract on account of unpaid invoices – where the defendant claims termination was unlawful – where the defendant counterclaims an amount for damages for loss of profit on mined product – whether the plaintiff was liable for any loss on account of unsaleable mined product – whether the plaintiff is liable for unaccounted for mined product CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – GENERAL – where the parties made an oral contract to perform road and mining works – where the plaintiff worked under the direction and supervision of a representative of the second defendant – where the defendant claims for damages for loss of profit caused by the plaintiff’s work CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – PARTIES – GENERALLY – where the first defendant was the director of the second defendant – whether the contract for works was made with the first defendant or second defendant Mining and Quarrying and Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) s 23 Australian Energy Ltd v Lennard Oil NL [1986], cited Winks v WH Heck & Sons Pty Ltd [1986] 1 Qd R 226, 238, cited Roluke Pty Ltd & Anor v Lamaro Consultants Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] NSWCA 323, considered
COUNSEL:	Dr MA Jonsson, with S Williams for the Plaintiffs PJ Favell for the First and Second Defendants
SOLICITORS:	Williams Graham Carman Solicitors for the Plaintiffs TressCox Lawyers for the First and Second Defendants