Coleman v Prentice

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.