Denbrook Constructions Pty Ltd v CBO Developments Pty Ltd - [2022] QDC 184

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Denbrook Constructions Pty Ltd v CBO Developments Pty Ltd
[2022] QDC 184
DENBROOK CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 109
PARTIES:
582 122
(Plaintiff)
v
CBO DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ACN 628 135 768
(Defendant)
FILE NO: 823/21
DIVISION: Civil
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING District Court at Brisbane
COURT:
DELIVERED ON: 16 August 2022
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 20 April 2022
JUDGE: Porter QC DCJ

ORDER: 1. The claim is dismissed.
2. Plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the proceeding
on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS - BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS – STATUTORY REGULATION OF
ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS
PAYMENTS – PAYMENT CLAIMS – Where the plaintiff

seeks judgment against the defendant for the payment of the amount claimed in a payment claim pursuant to the Building
Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) –
Whether the payment claim was a valid payment claim for
the purposes of the Act – Whether the payment claim
sufficiently met the requirement under s. 68(1)(a) of the Act
by identifying the works to which it related – Where the test
to determine whether a payment claim meets the statutory
condition is an objective one – Where a reasonable recipient
of the payment claim in the position of the defendant would
not have been able to identify the work to which the claim
related – whether a payment schedule delivered after the
statutory period is relevant to identifying the objective
meaning of the payment claim.
LEGISLATION: Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017
(Qld), ss. 61, 67, 68, 69, 75, 100
Clarence Street Pty Ltd v Isis Projects Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA
CASES:
391
KDV Sport Pty Ltd v Muggeridge Constructions Pty Ltd [2019]
QSC 178
T & M Buckley P/L v 57 Moss Road P/L [2010] QCA 381
COUNSEL: M. Steele for the plaintiff
W. Thomas for the defendant
SOLICITORS: Rose Litigation Lawyers for the plaintiff
ABKJ Lawyers for the defendant

SUMMARY
[1] The plaintiff (Denbrook) seeks judgment against the defendant (CBO) for $582,015.68 pursuant to the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act
2017 (Qld) (the Act). The document relied upon is headed ‘Payment Claim 26’

(PC 26). Denbrook contends that PC 26 is a valid payment claim served in
accordance with the Act, that no payment schedule was delivered within the period
required under the Act, that it had given the relevant pre-litigation notice, and
accordingly, it is entitled to judgment for the amount claimed in PC 26 pursuant to
s. 100 of the Act.
[2] The only defence advanced by CBO at trial was that PC 26 was not a valid payment claim under the Act because it failed to identify the construction work or related goods and services to which it related as required by s. 68(1)(a) of the Act. For the reasons that follow, that defence has succeeded. The claim is dismissed.

THE FACTS
The contract
[3] CBO entered a contract styled “Construction Management Contract”…

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 Denbrook Constructions Pty Ltd v CBO Developments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Denbrook Constructions Pty Ltd v CBO Developments Pty Ltd [2022] QDC 184
Case: [2022] QDC 184
Decision Date: 16 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Denbrook Constructions Pty Ltd v CBO Developments Pty Ltd, the parties were involved in a dispute relating to a building contract governed by statutory provisions. The respondent, Denbrook Constructions Pty Ltd, sought to recover outstanding payments under the contract from the appellant, CBO Developments Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory provisions governing building contracts, specifically the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2008, precluded the appellant from withholding payment from the respondent. The court needed to determine the extent to which the statutory provisions regulated the payment terms and whether they mandated prompt payment to the respondent. Additionally, the court examined whether the respondent was entitled to interest on the delayed payments.

The court held that the statutory provisions did not prevent the appellant from withholding payment, provided the withholding was not in bad faith and was in accordance with the terms of the contract. The court reasoned that the statutory provisions primarily aimed to ensure fair and timely payments but did not override contractual terms regarding payment conditions. The court also found that the respondent was not entitled to interest on the delayed payments as the statutory provisions did not explicitly mandate such interest.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent's claim for outstanding payments was dismissed, and no interest was payable on the delayed payments.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

CITATION:	Denbrook Constructions Pty Ltd v CBO Developments Pty Ltd
[2022] QDC 184
DENBROOK CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 109
PARTIES:
582 122
(Plaintiff)
v
CBO DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ACN 628 135 768
(Defendant)
FILE NO:	823/21
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING	District Court at Brisbane
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	16 August 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 April 2022
JUDGE:	Porter QC DCJ

ORDER:	1.	The claim is dismissed.
2.	Plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the proceeding
on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS - BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS – STATUTORY REGULATION OF
ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS
PAYMENTS – PAYMENT CLAIMS – Where the plaintiff
seeks judgment against the defendant for the payment of the amount claimed in a payment claim pursuant to the Building
Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) –
Whether the payment claim was a valid payment claim for
the purposes of the Act – Whether the payment claim
sufficiently met the requirement under s. 68(1)(a) of the Act
by identifying the works to which it related – Where the test
to determine whether a payment claim meets the statutory
condition is an objective one – Where a reasonable recipient
of the payment claim in the position of the defendant would not have been able to identify the work to which the claim
related – whether a payment schedule delivered after the
statutory period is relevant to identifying the objective meaning of the payment claim.
LEGISLATION:	Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), ss. 61, 67, 68, 69, 75, 100
Clarence Street Pty Ltd v Isis Projects Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA
CASES:
391 KDV Sport Pty Ltd v Muggeridge Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 178
T & M Buckley P/L v 57 Moss Road P/L [2010] QCA 381
COUNSEL:	M. Steele for the plaintiff
W. Thomas for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Rose Litigation Lawyers for the plaintiff
ABKJ Lawyers for the defendant