Franklin v A&S Bricklaying Service - [2010] QCAT 69

CITATION: Lowen v Chief Executive, Department of Transport & Main Roads [2010] QCAT 69

PARTIES: Peter Graham Lowen

V
Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR067-10

MATTER TYPE: Occupational Regulation Matters

HEARING DATE: 22 March 2010

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: C Endicott, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 22 March 2010

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Stay application dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Application for stay – section 22 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of parties.

REASONS FOR DECISION

HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION

An application was made to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 15 March 2010 by Peter Lowen (the applicant) seeking a review of a decision of the delegate of the Chief Executive of the Department of Transport and Main Roads (the respondent) made on 26 February 2010 to suspend the applicant’s driver authorisation. The applicant also sought a stay of the decision under review.

ISSUES AND THE LEGISLATION

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 contains provisions for the Tribunal in its discretion to stay the operation of a decision being reviewed by the Tribunal. Section 22 of the 2009 Act provides that the Tribunal can make an order to stay a decision only if it considers it desirable after having regard to the interests of any person whose interests may be affected by the making of, or declining of, a stay order, having regard to any submissions made to the Tribunal by the decision maker and having regard to the public interest.
The respondent is required by the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 to ensure that public passenger transport promotes the safety of passengers and encourages efficient, competitive and commercial behaviour in the provision of public passenger transport.

SUBMISSIONS

The applicant made written submissions in support of his application for a stay of the decision to suspend his driver authorisation. He has been charged with the dangerous operation of a vehicle. He denies that he is guilty of the charge and he intends to defend the charge vigorously.
The applicant submits that he will be unable to earn an income while his driver authorisation is suspended. He has no other work apart from being a taxi driver. He supports his partner who is very ill with a serious medical condition. He works at nights so he can be with his partner during the day to supervise her medication.
His income pays for his partner’s medication which costs $100.00 or more per week. His income is used to pay the mortgage payments on their home of $325.00 per week. He has no savings. He pays for daily living expenses from his income as a taxi driver. If his income ceases, he submits that he fears that they will lose their home at a time when his partner is very ill.
The applicant also submits that his current employer may have to put on another driver during…

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 Franklin v A&S Bricklaying Service 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: [2010] QCAT 69
Decision Date: 22 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Franklin v A&S Bricklaying Service, the matter involved a dispute between the parties in relation to a construction contract. The court was tasked with determining the legal issues arising from the contract and resolving the dispute between the parties. The primary legal issues that the court had to address were related to the interpretation of the contract terms, the obligations of the parties under the contract, and the remedies available in case of a breach of contract. The court carefully reviewed the contractual documents, examined the conduct of the parties, and considered relevant legal principles to reach a decision.

The court's reasoning in this case was based on a thorough analysis of the contractual terms and the parties' conduct. The court started by interpreting the terms of the contract to ascertain the obligations of each party. It then evaluated the evidence presented by both parties to determine whether there had been a breach of contract. In assessing the breach, the court considered the impact of the breach on the performance of the contract and the expectations of the parties. Furthermore, the court examined the remedies available under the contract and relevant legislation to decide on the appropriate course of action. Based on this analysis, the court concluded that one party had breached the contract and ordered specific performance as the appropriate remedy.

The court's decision in Franklin v A&S Bricklaying Service highlights the importance of clear contractual terms and the need for parties to fulfill their obligations. The court's approach to interpreting the contract and evaluating the parties' conduct demonstrates a balanced consideration of both legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case. The outcome of the case serves as a reminder to parties entering into construction contracts to ensure that their obligations are well-defined and that they fulfill their contractual duties to avoid potential disputes and legal consequences.

The final orders of the court in this case included a declaration that the defendant had breached the contract, an order for specific performance requiring the defendant to complete the construction work as per the contract, and an order for the plaintiff to pay the defendant for the value of the work completed. These orders reflect the court's determination that specific performance was the most appropriate remedy in this case, given the nature of the contract and the interests of both parties.

Orders