KAREN LYNNETTE HARRISON SCOTT WAYNE HARRISON (applicants) v MICHAEL THOMAS MEEHAN (respondent)
FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 575 of 2017 QCATA No 273 of 2015 QCATA No 375 of 2015
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
ORIGINATING COURT:
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal at Brisbane – [2016] QCATA 197 (Brown SM and Guthrie M)
DELIVERED ON:
19 December 2017
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11 August 2017
JUDGES:
Sofronoff P and McMurdo JA and Douglas J
ORDERS:
1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.
2. The applicants are to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – MEASURE OF – where the applicants engaged the respondent to build their house – where there was a disagreement, after construction had commenced, between the applicants and the respondent as to the work that had been performed and paid for – where the respondent eventually walked off the building site – where the applicants gave notice to the respondent that he was in breach of the contract and that the contract would be terminated unless the respondent resumed work within 10 days of receiving such notice – where the respondent did not resume work and the applicants terminated the contract – where the applicants commenced proceedings in QCAT to recover damages for breach of contract – where the member at first instance found that the respondent had breached the contract and was liable for damages – where the member awarded a sum of damages based on expert evidence as to the reasonable costs of the work – where the applicants appealed the decision to the Appeal Tribunal seeking a higher award of damages – where the respondent cross-appealed, seeking money that he claimed was still owing to him under the contract – where the Appeal Tribunal found that there was money owing to the respondent under the contract – where the Appeal Tribunal made a new award of damages taking into account the amount owing to the respondent under the contract – whether the Appeal Tribunal failed to consider all of the applicants’ grounds of appeal and submissions and all relevant evidence
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – WHAT IS – DISTINCTION BETWEEN QUESTION OF LAW AND QUESTION OF FACT – where the applicants were given an award of damages at first instance in QCAT – where the applicants appealed that award to the Appeal Tribunal – where that appeal was on grounds involving questions of law only and grounds involving questions of mixed law and fact – where the Appeal Tribunal found that leave should be granted due to an error of mixed law and fact – where the Appeal Tribunal then proceeded…
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 Harrison v Meehan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Harrison v Meehan [2017] QCA 315
Case
[2017] QCA 315
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, Harrison, engaged the respondent, Meehan, to construct their home. After a dispute arose regarding the work completed and payments made, the respondent ceased work on the property. The applicants notified the respondent of their intent to terminate the contract if work was not resumed within ten days. Upon the respondent's failure to resume work, the applicants terminated the contract and sought damages in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The QCAT member determined the respondent breached the contract and awarded damages based on expert evidence of the reasonable cost of the work. The applicants appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, seeking a higher damages award, while the respondent cross-appealed for monies allegedly owed under the contract. The Appeal Tribunal found money was due to the respondent and made a new damages award, considering this amount.
The primary legal issues were whether the Appeal Tribunal erred in its consideration of all the applicants' grounds of appeal and submissions and all relevant evidence. Specifically, the applicants contended the Appeal Tribunal should have limited its review to the grounds involving questions of law, rather than also considering grounds involving questions of mixed law and fact. The applicants argued the Appeal Tribunal should have remitted the mixed questions of law and fact for rehearing, rather than deciding the appeal through a rehearing.
The Appeal Tribunal found the applicants' grounds for appeal included both questions of law and mixed law and fact. The Appeal Tribunal concluded it had the authority to consider all grounds of appeal, including those involving mixed questions of law and fact, and proceeded to decide the appeal through a rehearing. The applicants argued this approach was erroneous, claiming the Appeal Tribunal should have confined its review to questions of law. The Appeal Tribunal's decision to consider all grounds of appeal, including those involving mixed questions of law and fact, was upheld. The appeal tribunal's decision to conduct a rehearing, rather than remitting the matter for a separate hearing, was also affirmed.
The applicants' appeal was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application. This outcome confirmed the Appeal Tribunal's authority to consider all grounds of appeal, including those involving mixed questions of law and fact, and to proceed with a rehearing rather than a separate hearing. The decision underscored the tribunal's jurisdiction in reviewing appeals involving mixed questions of law and fact, ensuring a comprehensive and fair review of the original decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.
2. The applicants are to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.