Mayaman Developments P/L v TQ Constructions P/L

Case [2009] QCA 214


[2009] QCA 214

COURT OF APPEAL

CHESTERMAN JA

Appeal No 7394 of 2009
SC No 12896 of 2009

MAYAMAN DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD Applicant

and

TQ CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD Respondent

BRISBANE

DATE 28/07/2009

ORDER

CHESTERMAN JA:  I will dismiss the application for a stay of Justice Daubney's order, the application for a stay being filed on 20th of July 2009.

I will order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of an incidental to the application for the stay, to be assessed on the standard basis.

...

HIS HONOUR:  Those are the orders I make.

Details
AGLC
Mayaman Developments P/L v TQ Constructions P/L [2009] QCA 214
Case
[2009] QCA 214
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mayaman Developments Pty Ltd sought an appeal against a decision made by Justice Daubney, which was related to a dispute with TQ Constructions Pty Ltd. The nature of the dispute involved a construction contract and related payments. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal in Queensland, with Chesterman JA presiding over the matter.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted a stay of Justice Daubney's order. The applicant, Mayaman Developments, argued that the stay should be granted to allow for further proceedings to be heard, while the respondent, TQ Constructions, opposed the stay. The court needed to decide whether the application for a stay should be granted, and if not, whether any costs should be awarded to the respondent.

The court found that the application for a stay should be dismissed. Chesterman JA determined that there were no grounds for the stay to be granted and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs associated with the application for the stay. The costs were to be assessed on a standard basis, and the appeal was dismissed. The final orders included the dismissal of the application for a stay and the awarding of costs to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.