DTM Constructions Pty Ltd trading as QA Developments v Poole - [2017] QSC 246

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

DTM Constructions Pty Ltd trading as QA Developments v Poole & Anor [2017] QSC 246

PARTIES:

DTM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 104 066 462 trading as QA DEVELOPMENTS

(plaintiff)

v
JUSTIN REID POOLE
(first defendant)
DARRYL ROY HOPKINS

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

No 12855 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial – Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Written submissions received 10, 12 October 2017

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons SJA

ORDERS:

1. The First Defendant pay to the Plaintiff the amount of $1,009,527.13 for the claim together with interest in the amount of $136,414.12 and the First Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

2. The Second Defendant pay to the Plaintiff the amount of $837,739.13 for the claim together with interest in the amount of $113,200.95 and the Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

INTEREST – RECOVERABILITY OF INTEREST – IN GENERAL – where damages were awarded to the plaintiff for the defendants’ breaches under general law and under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where the plaintiff submits interest should accrue on damages from date breaches occurred - where the defendants submit that interest on damages awarded should accrue at the point proceedings were commenced – whether interest should accrue from date of breaches or at point proceedings commenced

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 58

Butler & Ors v The State of Queensland [2014] QSC 19

Cashmere Bay Pty Ltd v Hastings Deering (Australia) Ltd (No. 2) [2011] QSC 134
GEJ & MA Geldard Pty Ltd v Mobbs & Ors (No 3) [2011] QSC 297
MBP (SA) Pty v Gogic (1991) 98 ALR 193

COUNSEL:

P W Hackett with P G Jeffery for the plaintiff

M Lawrence for the first and second defendants

SOLICITORS:

Evans Lawyers for the plaintiff

MDR Lawyers for the first and second defendants

Background

On 28 September 2017 I published my reasons in this matter and found that the first and second defendants had breached some of their duties as a director and officer of the plaintiff company under the general law and under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). Those breaches occurred in circumstances where as a director and officer of the plaintiff company, the first and second defendants were found to have diverted opportunities for the plaintiff company to enter into a number of building and construction contracts. My findings can be summarised as follows:

Contract subject of claim	Date of breach	First Defendant	Second Defendant
21 Blocks Coronation Hill	31/12/2014	$210,000.00	$210,000.00
19 Hoffman Way	11/05/2015	$35,327.84	$35,327.84
333 Riding Rd	25/05/2015	$159,709.24	$159,709.24
Lot 38 Birdwing Cr	01/06/2015	$31,905.40	$31,905.40
75 Springwood Rd	04/06/2015	$259,472.77	$259,472.77
Lot 2 Hillcrest	04/08/2015	$35,524.74	$35,524.74
Lot 3 Hillcrest	17/06/2015	$35,266.38	$35,266.38
Lot 8 Hillcrest	13/07/2015	$35,266.38	$35,266.38
Lot 21 Hillcrest	11/06/2015	$35,266.38	$35,266.38
29 Hunters St	24/08/2015

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 DTM Constructions Pty Ltd trading as QA Developments v Poole

Details

AGLC: DTM Constructions Pty Ltd trading as QA Developments v Poole [2017] QSC 246
Case: [2017] QSC 246
Decision Date: 1 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between DTM Constructions Pty Ltd trading as QA Developments (the plaintiff) and Poole (the defendant) was heard in a relevant Australian court. The plaintiff sought damages for breaches of contract and statutory provisions by the defendant. The primary dispute centred on the recoverability of interest on the awarded damages, with the plaintiff arguing that interest should accrue from the date the breaches occurred, while the defendant contended that interest should only accrue from the time the proceedings were initiated.

The court had to determine whether interest on damages should accrue from the date the breaches occurred or from the date the proceedings were commenced. This involved interpreting statutory provisions and assessing the principles of equity that apply to the recovery of interest on damages. The court needed to balance the plaintiff's right to full compensation against the defendant's argument that interest should not accrue until legal proceedings were initiated.

After careful consideration, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, holding that interest should accrue from the date the breaches occurred. The court found that this approach was consistent with the principles of full compensation and equitable treatment. The court awarded the plaintiff damages, along with interest calculated from the date of the breaches, and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs on an indemnity basis. This decision reinforces the importance of timely compensation for breaches of contract and statutory obligations.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The First Defendant pay to the Plaintiff the amount of $1,009,527.13 for the claim together with interest in the amount of $136,414.12 and the First Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

2. The Second Defendant pay to the Plaintiff the amount of $837,739.13 for the claim together with interest in the amount of $113,200.95 and the Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

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:	DTM Constructions Pty Ltd trading as QA Developments v Poole & Anor [2017] QSC 246
PARTIES:	DTM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 104 066 462 trading as QA DEVELOPMENTS (plaintiff) v JUSTIN REID POOLE (first defendant) DARRYL ROY HOPKINS (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	No 12855 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial – Orders
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 November 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Written submissions received 10, 12 October 2017
JUDGE:	Ann Lyons SJA
ORDERS:	1. The First Defendant pay to the Plaintiff the amount of $1,009,527.13 for the claim together with interest in the amount of $136,414.12 and the First Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on an indemnity basis. 2. The Second Defendant pay to the Plaintiff the amount of $837,739.13 for the claim together with interest in the amount of $113,200.95 and the Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on an indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	INTEREST – RECOVERABILITY OF INTEREST – IN GENERAL – where damages were awarded to the plaintiff for the defendants’ breaches under general law and under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where the plaintiff submits interest should accrue on damages from date breaches occurred - where the defendants submit that interest on damages awarded should accrue at the point proceedings were commenced – whether interest should accrue from date of breaches or at point proceedings commenced *Civil Proceedings Act* 2011 (Qld) s 58 Butler & Ors v The State of Queensland [2014] QSC 19 Cashmere Bay Pty Ltd v Hastings Deering (Australia) Ltd (No. 2) [2011] QSC 134 GEJ & MA Geldard Pty Ltd v Mobbs & Ors (No 3) [2011] QSC 297 MBP (SA) Pty v Gogic (1991) 98 ALR 193
COUNSEL:	P W Hackett with P G Jeffery for the plaintiff M Lawrence for the first and second defendants
SOLICITORS:	Evans Lawyers for the plaintiff MDR Lawyers for the first and second defendants