Dozer Enterprises Pty Ltd v Carmark Projects Pty Ltd

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Dozer Enterprises Pty Ltd v Carmark Projects Pty Ltd; & Ors [2025] QCAT 350

In BDL295-22

PARTIES:

DOZER ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

(applicant)

v

CARMARK PROJECTS PTY LTD

(respondent)

In BDL414-23

PARTIES:

THE TRUSTEE FOR T B BELL TRUST T/AS PRONTO PLUMBING & GAS QLD

(applicant)

v

CARMARK PROJECTS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL295-22 and BDL414-23

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

1.     In matter BDL295-22 Carmark Projects Pty Ltd pay Dozer Enterprises Pty Ltd the sum of $24,460.60 within 7 days of Order.

2.     In matter BDL414-22 Carmark Projects Pty Ltd pay The Trustee for T B Bell Trust t/as Pronto Plumbing & Gas Qld the sum of $8,560.50 within 7 days of Order.

3.     If any party claims costs the party must apply by way of Form 40 Application for Miscellaneous Matters within 28 days of Order.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – IMPLIED TERMS – where the applicants were engaged by the respondent to perform drainage work at a construction site – where the applicants invoiced the respondent for their work – where the respondent claimed payment was due from another corporate  entity – where the first applicant commenced proceedings in the Tribunal against both corporations – where the other corporation was placed under external administration – where objective consideration of the surrounding circumstances including the failure of the director of the liquidated corporation to nominate the applicants as creditors of the liquidated corporation showed the respondent corporation to be the contracting party 

BH Australia Constructions Pty Ltd v Kapeller [2019] NSWSC 1086

Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1833
County Securities Pty Limited v Challenger Group Holdings Pty Limited & Anor [2008] NSWCA 193
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8
Filadelfia Projects Pty Ltd v Entirity Business Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 116
Nurisvan Investment Ltd v Anyoption Holdings Ltd [2017] VSCA 141

Realestate.com.au Pty Ltd v Hardingham [2022] HCA 39

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicants:	Kipps, K E Solicitor CDI Lawyers
Respondent:	Treherne, M Solicitor Mark Treherne & Associates

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The second applicant (‘Pronto’) did plumbing work at a property at Lawnton from 14 to 16 September 2021. According to Pronto, that was at the request of the respondent (‘Carmark’) through its director, Mr Alford, with Carmark to supply necessary equipment and materials.

2. Mr Alford was not satisfied with the work. The first applicant (‘Dozer’) was engaged by Pronto to rectify the work. Subsequently Mr Alford engaged Dozer to do more work at the Lawnton site, from 3 to 10 November 2021.

3. Both applicants maintain Carmark is responsible for payment for the work they did but Mr Alford says the contracting entity was in fact another of his companies, Mark Development and Construction Pty Ltd (‘MDC’).

4. MDC entered into external administration on 7 October 2022.

5. Payment…