Mair Renovations v Miller - [2014] QCAT 474

CITATION:

Mair Renovations v Miller [2014] QCAT 474

PARTIES:	Jeffrey Mair t/as Mair Renovations Pamela Mair t/as Mair Renovations (Applicants)
v
Duncan Thomas Miller Genevieve Kay Miller (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BDL271-13

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Browne

DELIVERED ON:

25 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for interim order is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING DISPUTE – Application for interim order – whether just and convenient to determine preliminary issue – whether determination of the preliminary issue will contribute to a saving of hearing time and cost

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 28

A L Builders Pty Ltd v Fatseas & Anor [2014] QCAT 092, cited
A L Builders Pty Ltd v Fatseas & Anor [2014] QCATA 171, cited
Advance Traders Pty Ltd v McNab Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] QSC 212, cited
Re Cotton Crops Pty Ltd [1988] 1 Qd R 482, cited
Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australia Mutual Providence Society (1999) 217 ALR 495, cited

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicants, Jeffrey Mair and Pamela Mair t/as Mair Renovations (Mair Renovations) are in the business of building. Mr Jeffrey Mair is a registered builder and holds a licence under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 2009 (Qld).
The respondents, Duncan Miller and Genevieve Miller are the registered owners of property at 11 Athlone Street, Woolloongabba (the property).
Mr and Mrs Miller entered into a contract with Mair Renovations on or about 14 September 2010 to complete building work at the property for the contract price of $550,000.00. The contract was effectively to be performed in two stages in that work was to be completed to the upstairs and downstairs of the property.
An architect, Robert Eccles Pty Ltd was appointed to administer the contract on behalf of the home owners, Mr and Mrs Miller.
During completion of the work a dispute arose between the parties in relation to, amongst others, the works performed at the property and payment of money owing under the contract.
Mair Renovations commenced proceedings against Mr and Mrs Miller for payment of works performed at the property. Mr and Mrs Miller counter-claimed for the cost of rectifying alleged defective work and an amount for rental costs incurred and lost rental income in relation to the building work performed at the property.
The substantive proceeding (application BDL271-13) has been listed for a 5 day hearing before the Tribunal commencing on 17 November 2014.
The proceedings currently before the Tribunal were initially commenced in the District Court of Queensland and were transferred to the Tribunal pursuant to s 53 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the QCAT Act) on 31 October 2013.[1]
[1]Order of the District Court dated…

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 Mair Renovations v Miller 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: [2014] QCAT 474
Decision Date: 25 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in Mair Renovations v Miller were the applicant, Mair Renovations, and the respondent, Miller. The applicant sought an interim order concerning a dispute in relation to a building contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether it was just and convenient to determine a preliminary issue, specifically whether the determination of that issue would contribute to a saving of hearing time and cost.

The court had to consider whether it was appropriate to determine a preliminary issue before proceeding with the substantive hearing. Mair Renovations argued that determining the preliminary issue was necessary to clarify the scope of the dispute and potentially reduce the time and cost of the hearing. The court assessed the potential benefits of determining the preliminary issue against the overall efficiency of the proceedings. The court found that resolving the preliminary issue at that stage would not significantly contribute to saving time and cost in the overall proceedings. As such, the court concluded that it was not just and convenient to determine the preliminary issue at that juncture.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for the interim order. The reasoning was that the potential benefits of determining the preliminary issue were not sufficient to warrant the diversion of resources from the substantive hearing. The court's decision emphasised the importance of balancing the need for efficiency with the overall fairness and effectiveness of the judicial process. The orders made by the court were straightforward, with the application for the interim order being dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for interim order is dismissed.

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.