Contract Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett - [2015] QCAT 72

CITATION:

Contract Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2015] QCAT 72

PARTIES:	Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd (Applicant)
v
Mr Brett Andrew Bartlett (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BD469-08

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Browne

DELIVERED ON:

4 March 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Each party to bear their own costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – where partial success at hearing – whether the broad general discretion to award costs should be exercised

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100, s 102

Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2013] QCAT 322
Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2013] QCAT 399
Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2014] QCATA 262
Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 142, cited
Queensland Building Services Authority v Johnston [2011] QCATA 265, cited
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island Apartments (No 2) [2010] QCAT 412, cited
Tamawood Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111, cited

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:

Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd represented by Mr G Robinson of Counsel instructed by Mills Oakley Lawyers

RESPONDENT:

Mr Brett Bartlett represented by Mr P Hackett of Counsel instructed by Smith Leonard Fahey Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

This building dispute was commenced in the former Commercial and Consumer Tribunal in September 2009.[1] The matter proceeded to hearing before me in QCAT over five days and final orders were made on 5 July 2013.[2]
[1]The Commercial and Consumer Tribunal was abolished with the introduction of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) on 1 December 2009.
[2]Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2013] QCAT 322. On 5 August 2013 an amended order was made - see Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2013] QCAT 399.
Both parties filed an application for leave to appeal or appeal the Tribunal’s decision. On 9 September 2014, the Appeal Tribunal determined the appeal on the papers.[3] The appeals were allowed in part and an order made that the amount awarded to Mr Bartlett (initially) in the sum of $218,940.17 be reduced by $2,900.00 to the amount of $216,040.17 plus interest.[4] The Appeal Tribunal also considered the issue of costs in relation to the appeal and determined that each party bear their own costs.[5]
[3]Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2014] QCATA 262.
[4]Interest was allowed on the sum of $216,040.17 at the rate of 10% per annum compounding monthly between 15 December 2009 and 4 February 2013.
[5]Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2014] QCATA 262, [135].
Mr Bartlett now seeks orders from the Tribunal that Contrast Constructions pay Mr Bartlett’s costs of the proceedings (for the building dispute) to be assessed upon the Supreme Court Scale, if not…

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 Contract Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett

Details

AGLC: Contract Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2015] QCAT 72
Case: [2015] QCAT 72
Decision Date: 4 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Contract Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the primary dispute was over the costs incurred by both parties in the litigation. Contract Constructions Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, had taken legal action against Bartlett, the defendant, seeking to recover costs related to a contractual dispute. The court was tasked with determining the allocation of costs between the parties after Contract Constructions Pty Ltd achieved partial success in its claims.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the broad general discretion to award costs should be exercised in a way that was fair and just, given the partial success achieved by the plaintiff. The court had to consider the principle that the costs should follow the event, which generally means the losing party pays the costs of the winning party. However, the court also had to balance this with the principle that the costs should reflect the outcome of the case, including the extent of success achieved by each party.

The Supreme Court of Queensland, in its reasoning, held that the discretion to award costs should be exercised in a manner that reflects the actual outcome of the litigation. The court considered that Contract Constructions Pty Ltd had achieved partial success in their claims, but the extent of that success did not warrant a full award of costs against the defendant. Given the balance of success and the overall circumstances of the case, the court determined that it was just for each party to bear their own costs of the proceedings.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the proceedings, reflecting a balanced approach to the allocation of costs in light of the partial success achieved by the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Each party to bear their own costs of the proceedings.

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.