Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett - [2013] QCAT 399

CITATION:

Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2013] QCAT 399

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:

Joanne Browne, Member

DELIVERED ON:

5 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The order made by the Tribunal on 5 July 2013 is amended and the applicant, Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd is to pay the respondent, Mr Brett Bartlett the amount of $218,940.17 plus $130,363.36 in interest by 4:00pm on 5 September 2013.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING DISPUTE - Application for correction – where accidental slip or omission

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 135

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 5 July 2013 I ordered that the applicant, Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd pay the respondent, Mr Brett Bartlett the amount of $219,162.84 plus $130,547.35 in interest.
The amount of $219,162.84 awarded to the respondent included an amount assessed by the Tribunal for alleged incomplete and defective works that was off-set against money payable to the applicant (by the respondent) including the balance contract sum and adjustment of time costs claims also assessed by the Tribunal.
On 15 July 2013 the applicant filed an application seeking an order pursuant to s 135 of the QCAT Act to correct the amount awarded to the respondent on 5 July 2013 in relation to the assessed amount for incomplete and defective works, the amount of $415,429.78;[1] and the amount awarded for interest, the amount of $130,547.35.[2]
[1]Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2013] QCAT 322 at [97].
[2] Ibid, at [98].
The Tribunal made directions on 16 July 2013 in relation to the filing and exchange of written submissions in response to the applicant’s application for correction.
The applicant contends that the Tribunal has ordered an amount in relation to the alleged value of incomplete and defective works that is in excess of an amount stated to be the respondent’s position in the agreed issues for determination handed up at the hearing on 8 February 2013.
The applicant further contends that the Tribunal has calculated interest payable by the applicant on the total amount assessed for incomplete and defective work and the respondent should only be entitled to interest on the net amount.
In relation to the first issue raised by the applicant, the applicant and respondent agreed on a list of issues to be determined by the Tribunal during the 5 day hearing. The agreed list of issues included figures representing “[a] formula after determining the disputed amount” from which the Tribunal is to determine the “amount due”.
The figures listed on the agreed list of issues document included amounts being “the value of defective & incomplete work” reflecting each of the parties’ position in relation to…

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 Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett

Details

AGLC: Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2013] QCAT 399
Case: [2013] QCAT 399
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd (Applicant) v Bartlett (Respondent) [2013] QCAT 399 concerned a dispute between a builder and a homeowner over a building contract. The dispute was brought before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) for resolution. The Applicant sought an order to correct the amount awarded to the Respondent under an earlier QCAT decision, on the basis of an alleged clerical error. The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether an accidental slip or omission had occurred in the assessment of the incomplete and defective works and whether the amount of interest payable by the Applicant was correctly calculated.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not demonstrated that the earlier decision contained a clerical mistake, error from an accidental slip or omission, or a material miscalculation of figures. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had had an opportunity to put forward its case in its written submissions, but had failed to establish any grounds for correction. The Tribunal had clearly set out the evidence before it and its findings in relation to the incomplete and defective works and interest payable. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's contentions raised issues that required reconsideration of the evidence and findings, which it did not have the power to do under section 135 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). However, the Tribunal did find that there had been an error arising from an accidental slip or omission in the amount awarded for one of the incomplete and defective items. The Tribunal amended the amount awarded for that item and corrected the amount of interest payable by the Applicant.

The Tribunal ordered that the amount awarded to the Respondent by the earlier decision be amended and that the Applicant pay the Respondent the amount of $218,940.17 plus interest in the amount of $130,363.36 by 4:00pm on 5 September 2013. The Tribunal also ordered that the Applicant pay the Respondent the amount of $218,940.17 plus interest in the amount of $130,363.36 by 4:00pm on 5 September 2013.

Orders