Dart Holdings Pty Ltd v Total Concept Group Pty Ltd

Dart Holdings Pty Ltd initiated proceedings against Total Concept Group Pty Ltd regarding a subcontract agreement for the supply and installation of glass items. The dispute centred on the enforceability of the contract due to Total Concept Group's alleged lack of the necessary licence to perform the work under the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. Dart Holdings sought to challenge the enforceability of the contract, arguing that it could not be enforced if Total Concept Group was not duly licensed. Total Concept Group, on the other hand, contended that any unlicensed work could be severed from the rest of the contract under the severability clause, allowing it to recover payments for the work performed within its licensed capacity.

The court was tasked with determining whether Total Concept Group was duly licensed to perform the work stipulated in the contract and, if not, whether the entire contract was unenforceable. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the clause requiring unlicensed work could be severed from the rest of the contract, thereby allowing Total Concept Group to claim payment for the work it was licensed to perform. The primary issue was whether the lack of a valid licence for part of the work rendered the entire contract unenforceable or if the severability clause permitted the contract to stand for the portions performed within the scope of the licence.

In its judgment, the court ruled that Total Concept Group was not duly licensed to perform the work as specified in the contract, thereby breaching the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. Consequently, the court declared that Total Concept Group had no entitlement to payment for any part of the work under the contract, either as originally made or as varied. The court also found that Total Concept Group was not entitled to make a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 for any part of the work. The severability clause did not apply to render the unlicensed portion of the work enforceable. As a result, the entire contract was deemed unenforceable.