DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Impulse Electrical (Aust) Pty Ltd v Mother Natures Chermside Pty Ltd [2007] QDC 023
PARTIES:
Impulse Electrical (Aust) Pty Ltd
(Applicant)
v
Mother Natures Chermside Pty Ltd
(Defendant)
FILE NO/S:
305/2007
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court
DELIVERED ON:
2 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
26 February 2007
JUDGE:
Forde DCJ
ORDER:
1. Judgment for the applicant against the respondent in thesum of $89,791.67 together with interest pursuant to the Supreme Court Act at the rate of 9 per cent from 2 February 2007.
2. It is further ordered that the respondent pay to the applicant its costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:
Building and Construction Payments – Progress Claims – Payment Schedule – Reference Date
Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), ss 7, 8, 12, 17 and Schedule 2.
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act1999 (NSW), ss 8(b), 13
Brodyn Pty Limited v Davenport [2004] NSWCA 394
Brookhollow Pty Ltd v R & R Consultants Pty Ltdand Anor. (No 2) [2006] NSWSC 200
Cant Contracting Pty Ltd v Casella [2006] QCA 538
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232
F.K.Gardner & Sons Pty Ltd v Dimin Pty Ltd [2006] QSC 243
Nepean Engineering Pty Ltd v Total Process Services (in liq) [2005] NSWCA 409
Walter Construction Group Ltd v CPL (Surrey Hills) Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 266
COUNSEL:
Mr A. Hoare for the Applicant.
Mr T. Matthews for the Defendant.
SOLICITORS:
I
McKays Solicitors for the Applicant.
Hatzis Lawyers for the Respondent.
f
Introduction
By a tender dated 4 September 2006,[1] the applicant, Impulse Electrical (Aust) Pty Ltd, offered to carry out the supply and installation of a range of electrical work for the respondent, Mother Natures, at Westfield Shopping Centre, Chermside, a northern suburb of Brisbane. The tender price of $85,048.000 excluding GST was accepted by the respondent’s agent, Remedial Building Services by facsimile on 24 September 2006.[2] A deposit of 10% was payable to the applicant. There was a request to commence work immediately as it was required to be completed by 15 October 2006. It was not suggested that Remedial Building Services did not have the necessary authority to so contract.
[1] Exhibit “MB1”to the affidavit of Margaret Anne Bonnett
[2] Exhibit “MB2”
In fact, it appears that work commenced earlier than this 24 September 2006.[3] A Progress Claim No 1 was tendered through the applicant’s solicitor at the hearing. It amounted to $8,504.80 excluding GST. The due date for payment was given as 26 September 2006. A subsequent Progress Claim No 2 was issued on 27 October 2006.[4] The previous amount of $8,504.80 was deducted leaving $84,055.15 owing excluding GST. The latter figure included an additional variation of $7,511.95. Subsequently, the Remedial Building Services wrote to the applicant and referred to incomplete works and asked it to revise the claim, including a variation.[5] Subsequently, on 7 December 2006, an amended Progress…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Impulse Electrical (Aust) Pty Ltd v Mother Natures Chermside... 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] QDC 23
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the respondent was liable for the additional amounts claimed by the applicant, specifically whether the reference date for the calculation of the progress claims should have been the date of the contract or an earlier date as claimed by the applicant. The tribunal had to determine the correct reference date to apply in the calculation of the progress claims, as well as the interpretation of the payment schedule and its effect on the progress claims.
The tribunal found that the reference date for the calculation of the progress claims should be the date of the contract, as it was the date from which the payment schedule was to take effect. The tribunal also found that the payment schedule did not alter the obligation to make payments in accordance with the progress claims. The tribunal held that the respondent was liable for the amounts claimed by the applicant, and ordered judgment in favour of the applicant together with interest and costs. The tribunal further ordered that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the applicant against the respondent in thesum of $89,791.67 together with interest pursuant to the Supreme Court Act at the rate of 9 per cent from 2 February 2007.
2. It is further ordered that the respondent pay to the applicant its costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed.
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.