Drill Engineering & Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Seymour - [2022] QDC 136

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Drill Engineering & Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Seymour & another [2022] QDC 136

PARTIES:

DRILL ENGINEERING & PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD

(Plaintiff)

V

ANNE SYEMOUR

(First Defendant)

AND

MICHAEL SYEMOUR

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO:

21/2020

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

16 June 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14, 15, 16 and 24 March 2022

JUDGE:

Porter QC DCJ

ORDERS:

1. The defendants pay the plaintiff $335,896.00

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERICAL CONTRACT TERMS – Where the plaintiff claims for sum due under an informal contract to drill a water bore – Where the plaintiffs gave no warranty that an aquifer would be intersected – Where no aquifer was tapped – Where the defendants contend that the plaintiff failed to perform the contract by not drilling to a true vertical depth of approximately 1,200 metres –Whether the plaintiff undertook the drilling work with reasonable care and skill – Whether the contract was an entire contract – Whether the parties agreed to end the drilling works or the plaintiff abandoned the works

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE – Whether the witness is an expert in a field of specialised knowledge – Where the witness lacked expertise to give expert opinion evidence on the subject matter of the issues at trial

COUNSEL:

S. B. Whitten and Y. Araki for the Plaintiff

G. Allan for the First and Second Defendants

SOLICITORS:

Swanwick Murray Roche for the Plaintiff

W J Markwell & Associates for the First and Second Defendant

Contents

Summary
The facts

The Seymour’s buy Windemere
Artesian aquifers in the Winton area
The Seymours’ investigations
Depco is retained
The development permits
Stage 1 of the drilling: 4 to 24 July 2017
Stage 2 of the drilling: 31 July to 9 September 2017
The decision to terminate drilling

The evidence
Analysis

The depth and direction of the bore hole

The issues
Mr Mann’s evidence

Mr Mann’s qualifications and area of expertise
The first report
The second report
The third report
The fourth report
The fifth and sixth reports
The seventh report

Depco’s experts
Depco’s lay witnesses

Evidence in chief
Cross examination

Admissibility of Mr Mann’s evidence

Cross examination
Parties’ submissions
Relevant principles
General observations on Mr Mann’s evidence
The inferred bore hole evidence
The admissibility of the wireline evidence

Findings

The contract

The character of the contract
Facts relevant to construction
The parties’ contentions

Analysis

Areas of consensus
Did Depco drill with ‘reasonable care’?
The entire agreement issue

Disposition of the proceedings

Summary

The plaintiff (Depco) drills water bores. Its principal, Mr Riddell, has been involved in that business for many years. The defendants (the Seymours) are graziers. They have been involved in that business for many years. In about late 2016, the Seymours purchased an additional property near Winton called Windemere. They hoped to access artesian water.
In about mid-2017, the Seymours and Mr Riddell negotiated for Depco to drill a bore on the property…

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 Drill Engineering & Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Seymour

Details

AGLC: Drill Engineering & Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Seymour [2022] QDC 136
Case: [2022] QDC 136
Decision Date: 16 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Drill Engineering & Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Seymour involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a drilling company, and the defendant, a landowner. The plaintiff was contracted to drill a water bore on the defendant's land. The contract did not include any warranty that an aquifer would be intersected. The drilling was ultimately unsuccessful, as no water was found. The defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to perform the contract adequately by not drilling to a depth of approximately 1,200 metres. The plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that it performed the work with reasonable care and skill.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had fulfilled its contractual obligations and whether the contract constituted an entire contract. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether the parties had agreed to terminate the drilling works or whether the plaintiff had abandoned the works. The admissibility of expert opinion evidence was also an issue, as the witness lacked the necessary expertise to provide an expert opinion on the subject matter of the issues at trial.

The court found that the plaintiff had performed the drilling work with reasonable care and skill. The court also determined that the contract was not an entire contract, as it was possible to ascertain the value of the work performed up until the point of termination. The court further found that the drilling works were not terminated by agreement but rather abandoned by the plaintiff. The court also excluded the expert opinion evidence due to the witness's lack of relevant expertise. Ultimately, the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff $335,896.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendants pay the plaintiff $335,896.00

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:	Drill Engineering & Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Seymour & another [2022] QDC 136
PARTIES:	DRILL ENGINEERING & PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD (Plaintiff) V ANNE SYEMOUR (First Defendant) AND MICHAEL SYEMOUR (Second Defendant)
FILE NO:	21/2020
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	16 June 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14, 15, 16 and 24 March 2022
JUDGE:	Porter QC DCJ
ORDERS:	1. The defendants pay the plaintiff $335,896.00
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERICAL CONTRACT TERMS – Where the plaintiff claims for sum due under an informal contract to drill a water bore – Where the plaintiffs gave no warranty that an aquifer would be intersected – Where no aquifer was tapped – Where the defendants contend that the plaintiff failed to perform the contract by not drilling to a true vertical depth of approximately 1,200 metres –Whether the plaintiff undertook the drilling work with reasonable care and skill – Whether the contract was an entire contract – Whether the parties agreed to end the drilling works or the plaintiff abandoned the works EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE – Whether the witness is an expert in a field of specialised knowledge – Where the witness lacked expertise to give expert opinion evidence on the subject matter of the issues at trial
COUNSEL:	S. B. Whitten and Y. Araki for the Plaintiff G. Allan for the First and Second Defendants
SOLICITORS:	Swanwick Murray Roche for the Plaintiff W J Markwell & Associates for the First and Second Defendant