Mair Renovations v Miller (No 2) - [2014] QCAT 506

CITATION:

Mair Renovations v Miller (No 2) [2014] QCAT 506

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:

17 October 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Browne

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application to join Robert Eccles and Robert Eccles Pty Ltd as a party to the proceeding is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING DISPUTE – application for joinder – whether the party’s interests are affected – whether it is desirable for a party to be joined

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 42

Bach v Majestic Pools & Landscapes Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT 581, cited
Bartlett v Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise [2011] QCAT 91, cited
Coral Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCATA 241, cited
Gregor v Victoria [2000] VCAT 414, cited
Just GI P/L v Pig Improvement Co Aust P/L [2001] QCA 48, cited
Mackay v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 381, cited
Mair Renovations v Miller [2014] QCAT 474, cited
MGM Containers P/L v Wockner [2006] QCA 502, cited

REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:

Jeffrey Mair t/as Mair Renovations and Pamela Mair t/as Mair Renovations represented by Ms Aleksandra Kucharek, Solicitor, Daley Law Practice

RESPONDENT:

Duncan Thomas Miller and Genevieve Kay Miller represented by Mr Russell Ensbey, Solicitor, CBP Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 25 September 2014 the Tribunal made final orders dismissing an application for interim order filed by the applicants, Mair Renovations.[1]
[1]The Tribunal determined the application for interim order on the papers without an oral hearing as per directions made on 30 July 2014, see Mair Renovations v Miller [2014] QCAT 474.
On 17 October 2014 the Tribunal proceeded to hear an application for joinder of a party filed by the respondents, Duncan Miller and Genevieve Miller.
The Tribunal, in the decision dated 25 September 2014, provided an overview of the proceedings. In the interests of meeting the Tribunal’s objectives under s 3 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) to determine matters in a way that is ‘informal and quick’ and to promote the ‘quality and consistency of tribunal decisions’, the Tribunal relies on the same overview of the proceedings from the decision made on 25 September 2014, on the basis that the overview is relevant to the context in which the application for joinder has been made.
The applicants, Jeffrey Mair and Pamela Mair t/as Mair Renovations (Mair Renovations) are in the business of building. Jeffrey Mair is a registered builder and holds a licence under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld).
The respondents, Duncan Miller and Genevieve Miller are the registered owners of property at 11 Athlone Street, Woolloongabba (the property).
Duncan Miller and Genevieve Miller entered into a contract with Mair Renovations on or…

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 (No 2) 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 506
Decision Date: 17 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mair Renovations, the plaintiff, lodged an application against Miller, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of Queensland, alleging breaches of contract and associated claims. The plaintiff sought to join Robert Eccles and Robert Eccles Pty Ltd, who were not original parties to the proceeding, arguing that their interests were directly affected by the subject matter of the proceeding. The defendants opposed the application, contending that the plaintiff's claims against them did not require the presence of the additional parties and that it would not be desirable to join them.

The court needed to determine if the additional parties' interests were indeed affected by the proceeding and if it was desirable to join them. The court examined the nature of the claims and the relationship between the plaintiff and the additional parties. The plaintiff argued that Robert Eccles and Robert Eccles Pty Ltd had contractual relationships with the defendants and the plaintiff, and that their involvement was necessary to fully address the plaintiff's claims. The defendants argued that the additional parties were not integral to the plaintiff's claims and that their inclusion would unnecessarily complicate the proceeding.

After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court found that the plaintiff's claims against the defendants did not require the presence of the additional parties. The court held that the plaintiff's interests could be adequately protected without joining Robert Eccles and Robert Eccles Pty Ltd as parties to the proceeding. The court further found that it was not desirable to join the additional parties as it would unnecessarily complicate the proceeding without providing any substantive benefit to the resolution of the claims. Therefore, the application to join the additional parties was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to join Robert Eccles and Robert Eccles Pty Ltd as a party to the proceeding 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.