Farrell Builders Pty Ltd v Hall - [2018] QCAT 420

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Farrell Builders Pty Ltd & Anor v Hall & Anor [2018] QCAT 420

PARTIES:

FARRELL BUILDERS PTY LTD

(first applicant)

SHANE FARRELL
(second applicant)

v

BRENT HALL

(first respondent)

HELEN HALL

(second respodent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL204-16

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2018

HEARING DATE:

7, 8, 9 August 2017; 7 September 2017

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Holzberger

ORDERS:

1. Shane Farrell must pay Brent Hall and Hellen Hall the sum of $5,461.56, by: 4:00pm on 7 December 2018.

2. The parties must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and serve on the other party one (1) copy of written submissions limited to five (5) A4 pages in 12 point font in relation to costs, by: 4:00pm on 18 January 2019.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – GENERAL – where the parties contracted for the construction of a dwelling – what documents were included as contract documents – where the contract provided for monthly claims – installation of cladding other than that specified – substantial breach – whether notice to remedy breach and notice of termination were defective – lawfulness of termination – inconsistency between building approval documents and contract – appropriate method of calculation of damages – reasonableness of assessment based on rectification costs – assessment of incomplete and defective works – assessment of liquidated damages before and after termination

Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
Ridolfi v Rigato Farms Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 455
Ruxley Electronics & Construction Limited v Forsyth [1966] AC 344
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272

Willshee v Westcourt Ltd [2009] WASCA 87

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicants:

B Thomas (direct brief)

Respondents:

N M Cooke, instructed by Rostron Carlyle Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

In March 2015, Brent Hall and Helen Hall (‘the Halls’) obtained a development approval to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling (‘the dwelling’) at their property at 112 Milson Street, Coorparoo (‘the site’).
The Halls engaged an architect, Stephen Milton. He was engaged to ‘design the Dwelling; prepare the plans and specifications for the construction of the dwelling; call tenders for the demolition of the former dwelling on the site and the construction of the new dwelling; prepare the tender and contract documents; and (originally) to administer the contract.’[1]
[1]Joint statement of agreed facts, filed 17 May 2017, para 4.
When the design phase was complete and the plans and specifications had been settled to the Halls’ satisfaction, Mr Milton contacted a number of builders to obtain tender quotes, including Shane Farrell, who he contacted by phone in or around May 2015.[2]
[2]Witness statement of Stephen Milton, filed 24 July 2017, paras 9, 12.
Mr Milton’s evidence is that he emailed Shane Farrell quotes, the relevant architectural drawings, specifications, structural drawings and tender documents.[3] The only email in evidence indicates only an amendment to the terms of the tender and the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Farrell Builders Pty Ltd v Hall and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] QCAT 420
Decision Date: 9 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Farrell Builders Pty Ltd brought an action against Brent Hall and Hellen Hall, seeking compensation for breach of contract and for the recovery of liquidated damages. The dispute arose from a contract for the construction of a dwelling. The primary issues before the court were the identification of the contract documents, the validity of notices given in relation to breaches of contract, the calculation of damages, and the assessment of incomplete and defective works.

The court examined whether the notices provided by the plaintiffs to the defendants regarding the breach of contract and the termination of the contract were valid. It found that the notices were indeed defective, as they did not comply with the terms of the contract. However, the court held that the termination was lawful given the substantial nature of the breach. The court also addressed the inconsistency between the building approval documents and the contract, determining that the contract terms should prevail. Regarding the calculation of damages, the court assessed the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' approach based on rectification costs, finding it to be acceptable. The court further examined the assessment of the incomplete and defective works and the calculation of liquidated damages both before and after the termination of the contract.

The court ordered that Shane Farrell pay Brent Hall and Hellen Hall the sum of $5,461.56 by 4:00pm on 7 December 2018. Additionally, the parties were required to file and serve written submissions limited to five A4 pages in 12 point font in relation to costs by 4:00pm on 18 January 2019.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Shane Farrell must pay Brent Hall and Hellen Hall the sum of $5,461.56, by: 4:00pm on 7 December 2018.

2. The parties must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and serve on the other party one (1) copy of written submissions limited to five (5) A4 pages in 12 point font in relation to costs, by: 4:00pm on 18 January 2019.

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:	Farrell Builders Pty Ltd & Anor v Hall & Anor [2018] QCAT 420
PARTIES:	FARRELL BUILDERS PTY LTD (first applicant) SHANE FARRELL (second applicant)
v
BRENT HALL (first respondent) HELEN HALL (second respodent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	BDL204-16
MATTER TYPE:	Building matters
DELIVERED ON:	9 November 2018
HEARING DATE:	7, 8, 9 August 2017; 7 September 2017
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Holzberger
ORDERS:	1. Shane Farrell must pay Brent Hall and Hellen Hall the sum of $5,461.56, by: 4:00pm on 7 December 2018. 2. The parties must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and serve on the other party one (1) copy of written submissions limited to five (5) A4 pages in 12 point font in relation to costs, by: 4:00pm on 18 January 2019.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – GENERAL – where the parties contracted for the construction of a dwelling – what documents were included as contract documents – where the contract provided for monthly claims – installation of cladding other than that specified – substantial breach – whether notice to remedy breach and notice of termination were defective – lawfulness of termination – inconsistency between building approval documents and contract – appropriate method of calculation of damages – reasonableness of assessment based on rectification costs – assessment of incomplete and defective works – assessment of liquidated damages before and after termination Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 Ridolfi v Rigato Farms Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 455 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Limited v Forsyth [1966] AC 344 Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272 Willshee v Westcourt Ltd [2009] WASCA 87
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicants:	B Thomas (direct brief)
Respondents:	N M Cooke, instructed by Rostron Carlyle Lawyers