Colormode Pty Ltd v Civic Construction Group Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Colormode Pty Ltd v Civic Construction Group Pty Ltd

[2024] QDC 148

PARTIES:

COLORMODE PTY LTD

(Plaintiff)

v

CIVIC CONSTRUCTION GROUP PTY LTD

(Defendant)

FILENO/S:

BD 1924/21

DIVISION:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

13 September 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARINGDATE:

8, 9, 10, 26 April 2024; final written spreadsheets of

claims and defences, 20 May 2024

JUDGE:

Barlow KC, DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   There be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of

$38,120.80, plus interest in an amount to be determined.

2.   The parties, by 27 September 2024, file and serve (and provide to my associate by email) written submissions on interest and costs.

3.   Each party may, by 4 October 2024, file and serve (and provide to my associate by email) written submissions in response to the other’s submissions under order 2.

4.   All written submissions be limited to 5 pages.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION –

ESTOPPEL - RECOVERY – plaintiff, a painting contractor, and defendant, a building contractor, entered into three contracts between 2014 and 2016 – plaintiff seeks payment from the defendant, claiming that amounts are due under each contract primarily due to alleged variations in the contracted work - whether works were undertaken and, if so, were variations to the works under the contract - plaintiff also seeking the return of retention money held by the defendant under the contracts – whether the plaintiff is entitled to the return of retention money - defendant asserts that no money is owed to the

plaintiff – defendant contends that any variations were

not properly sought and approved in accordance with the procedures, including strict time limits outlined in each contract - plaintiff accepts that not all variations were undertaken following the process specified in the contracts - plaintiff argues that the defendant waived compliance with these procedures, or is estopped from relying on non-compliance – whether the defendant waived compliance with, or is estopped from using, the procedures to deny the plaintiff’s claims – whether time limits prevent recovery of any parts of the plaintiff’s claims - defendant seeks liquidated damages for the plaintiff’s delay in completing the works under each contract - defendant seeks judgment in its favour for the balance after offsetting this amount against any potential liability to the plaintiff – whether time limits apply to the defendant’s offsetting claim.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, 149(d), r 172, r 173, r 5

Civil Proceedings Act 2011, s 20

Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council

[2017] NSWCA 113, considered

AGC Industries Pty Ltd v Karara Mining Ltd [2019] WASC 140, considered

Bartier v Kounza Investments Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 390, distinguished

Capello v Lyons (2023) 111 NSWLR 570, applied Creative Building Services v Joeline Investments [2015] NSWSC 391, applied

Hunters Green Retirement Living Pty Ltd v J G King Project Management Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 536, considered

John Goss Projects Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors

(2006) 66 NSWLR 707