Machayekhy v Bayeh

In Machayekhy v Bayeh, the applicant, Adrian Machayekhy, sought relief from the Supreme Court of Queensland following a dispute over a contract for the construction of a home. The respondents, Sarkis Bayeh, the home's owner, and three building companies, were alleged to have breached the contract and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The primary issue before the court was whether the contract was governed by the Home Building Act 1989 (Qld) or if the applicants had established a contractual relationship with the respondents that allowed them to seek damages for breach of contract. The court also considered the conduct of the parties in the proceedings to determine the appropriate costs order.

The court found that the contract was governed by the Home Building Act and that the applicants had not established a contractual relationship with the respondents that allowed them to seek damages for breach of contract. The court held that the subsequent conduct of the parties could not be considered to identify the parties to the contract, as the applicants had not demonstrated an intention to enter into a contract with the respondents. The court also found that the applicants had not established a claim for misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

In relation to costs, the court made a Sanderson order, which provides that a party who has been successful on all or substantially all of the issues in the proceedings is entitled to costs on the ordinary basis. However, if any party wishes to contend that a different costs order should be made, the court ordered that an application for a different costs order be filed and served within 14 days, with any response and reply submissions to be filed and served within the following 14 and 7 days, respectively. The court indicated that it may dispense with a hearing if the parties agree.

The court ordered that the first respondent, Sarkis Bayeh, is to pay the first applicant, Adrian Machayekhy, $71,143 immediately. The application was otherwise dismissed, and the first respondent was to pay the costs of the second, third and fourth respondents and costs of the applicants, on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed. If any party wishes to contend that a different costs order should be made, the court's previous order regarding the filing and serving of submissions and evidence would apply.