Huenerberg v Serenity Constructions Qld Pty Ltd - [2018] QCAT 394

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Huenerberg & Anor v Serenity Constructions QLD Pty Ltd [2018] QCAT 394

PARTIES:

DIRK HUENERBERG
and
ERIKA HUENERBERG
(applicant)

v

SERENITY CONSTRUCTIONS QLD PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL223-17

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

16 October 2018

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

1. Application BDL223-17 is struck out.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – GENERALLY – where Consent Orders ‘in full and final satisfaction of the issues in dispute’ – where further proceedings commenced – whether issue estoppel applied to prevent further proceedings – where issues not included in original application – whether issues should have been included in original application – where applicants aware of issues during earlier proceedings – where applicants incorrectly believed they had to undergo internal review – where applicants misread application form – where misreading form not sufficient explanation for not including issue in original application – where nothing prevented issues being raised in original application – where Tribunal has statutory mandate to resolve matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick – where allowing further application about issues that could reasonably have been included in original application would unnecessarily incur upon limited resources of parties and Tribunal and amount to abuse of process

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 47

Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 069
Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare
Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd t/as Elders Redcliffe [2013] QCATA 212

Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this Application about?

On 29 November 2016 and following a Compulsory Conference, Dirk Huenerberg, Erika Huenerberg and Serenity Constructions QLD Pty Ltd agreed to Consent Orders for Application BDL186-16, including an order that the orders ‘are in full and final satisfaction of the issues in dispute’.
On 21 September 2017, Dirk Huenerberg and Erika Huenerberg filed Application BDL223-17 against Serenity. However, on 22 January 2018 Serenity filed an application for miscellaneous matters to dismiss Application BDL223-17 on the basis that all items in dispute were finalised by the Consent Orders in the original proceedings.
What is the effect of the Consent Orders?
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction extends to making orders relating to the issues in dispute in the application before it. The Tribunal cannot make orders extending to issues that do not form part of the application before it at that time.
The issues in dispute in Application BDL186-16 related to external floor tiles, down lights, ceiling floors, fly screens, back sliding glass door, vanity tops in bathroom, roof tiles,…

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 Huenerberg v Serenity Constructions Qld Pty Ltd 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 394
Decision Date: 16 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Huenerberg v Serenity Constructions Qld Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the applicant, Huenerberg, and the respondent, Serenity Constructions Qld Pty Ltd. The dispute originated from an earlier set of proceedings that were concluded with Consent Orders, which were meant to be in full and final satisfaction of the issues in dispute. Despite the terms of these orders, Huenerberg commenced further proceedings against Serenity Constructions, seeking to address issues that had not been included in the original Consent Orders. The primary legal issue before the court was whether issue estoppel applied to prevent Huenerberg from pursuing the new issues, and if those issues should have been included in the original application.

The court considered the circumstances surrounding the drafting and filing of the original application. It found that Huenerberg had been aware of the additional issues during the earlier proceedings but believed they needed to undergo an internal review before including them in the application. This belief was based on a misreading of the application form. However, the court held that this misreading did not constitute a sufficient explanation for omitting the issues from the original application. Furthermore, the court noted that nothing prevented Huenerberg from raising the issues in the initial application. The court emphasised the statutory mandate of the Tribunal to resolve matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal, and quick. Allowing further proceedings on issues that could reasonably have been included in the original application would unnecessarily burden the parties and the Tribunal's resources and would amount to an abuse of process.

The court concluded that the new application should be struck out, finding that permitting it to proceed would result in an unjust outcome and a waste of judicial resources. The court ordered that Application BDL223-17 be struck out, effectively preventing Huenerberg from pursuing the additional issues against Serenity Constructions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application BDL223-17 is struck out.

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:	Huenerberg & Anor v Serenity Constructions QLD Pty Ltd [2018] QCAT 394
PARTIES:	DIRK HUENERBERG and ERIKA HUENERBERG (applicant)
v
SERENITY CONSTRUCTIONS QLD PTY LTD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	BDL223-17
MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:	16 October 2018
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Hughes
ORDERS:	1. Application BDL223-17 is struck out.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – GENERALLY – where Consent Orders ‘in full and final satisfaction of the issues in dispute’ – where further proceedings commenced – whether issue estoppel applied to prevent further proceedings – where issues not included in original application – whether issues should have been included in original application – where applicants aware of issues during earlier proceedings – where applicants incorrectly believed they had to undergo internal review – where applicants misread application form – where misreading form not sufficient explanation for not including issue in original application – where nothing prevented issues being raised in original application – where Tribunal has statutory mandate to resolve matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick – where allowing further application about issues that could reasonably have been included in original application would unnecessarily incur upon limited resources of parties and Tribunal and amount to abuse of process Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 47 Breezeway Developments Pty Ltd v ADG Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2010] QCATA 069 Creek v Raine & Horne Real Estate Mossman [2011] QCATA 226 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd t/as Elders Redcliffe [2013] QCATA 212 Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).