Multiplex Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd

Multiplex Ltd, the appellant, filed an application in the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking a declaration that Qantas Airways Ltd, the respondent, had no entitlement to deduct liquidated damages from various progress payments owed under a construction contract. The primary judge declined to make certain assumptions proposed by the appellant, which were contrary to other submissions made by the appellant, and subsequently dismissed the application. Multiplex Ltd appealed the primary judge's decision, arguing that the judge had erred in not declaring the rights of the parties regarding the amounts claimed by the respondent as liquidated damages. The primary judge's decision was based on the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 and was further informed by the principles established in Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd and Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Limited. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge had erred in declining to declare the rights of the parties regarding the respondent's claim for liquidated damages. The appellant argued that the primary judge should have made assumptions that were favourable to their position, despite these being inconsistent with other submissions made by the appellant. The respondent contended that the primary judge correctly exercised their discretion in declining to make the requested assumptions and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court had to determine whether the primary judge's decision was erroneous and whether the appeal should succeed.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the relevant provisions of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 and the established principles from the cited authorities. The court held that the primary judge had not erred in declining to make the assumptions proposed by the appellant, as these were inconsistent with other submissions made by the appellant. The court found that the primary judge had correctly exercised their discretion in declining to make the assumptions and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court further held that the appellant should pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, as per the standard basis for assessing costs.

In summary, the appeal was dismissed, and the primary judge's decision was affirmed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, as assessed on the standard basis.