Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd v Yatala Formwork Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd v Yatala Formwork Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 285

PARTIES:

Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd
(ACN 614 074 065)

(applicant)

v
Yatala Formwork Pty Ltd
(ACN 600 342 881)

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 5090 of 2023

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 December 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 November 2023

JUDGE:

Martin SJA

ORDER:

1.   The application is dismissed.

2.   I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – SEPARATE DECISION OR DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS AND CONSOLIDATION OF PROCEEDINGS – SEPARATE DECISION OR DETERMINATION – GENERALLY – where there is a significant factual dispute – where an answer to the separate questions may narrow the dispute – where one separate question has the potential to resolve the entire dispute if answered in a particular way – whether an order should be made for the determination of separate questions

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 483

Bass v Permanent Trustee Company Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334, cited
Body Corporate for Sun City Resort CTS 24674 v Sunland Constructions Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 463, cited
Brisbane Airport Corp Pty Ltd v Arup Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 202, considered
Cairns City Council v Xontan Pty Ltd [1999] QSC 215, cited
CBS Productions Pty Ltd v O’Neill (1985) 1 NSWLR 601, cited
GMB Research & Development Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1997] FCA 934, cited
Jacobson v Ross [1995] 1 VR 337, cited
McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Cardno (Qld) Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 320, cited
Nissan v Attorney-General [1970] AC 179, cited
POS Media Online Ltd v Queensland Investment Corp [2000] FCA 1451, cited
Queensland Harness Racing Ltd v Racing Queensland Ltd [2011] QSC 125, cited
Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society (1999) 217 ALR 495, considered

COUNSEL:

J Hastie for the applicant

J Baartz for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Shand Taylor for the applicant

Rose Litigation Lawyers for the respondent

  1. Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd is a building company. It contracted with Yatala Formwork Pty Ltd as a subcontractor for Yatala to carry out formworks at a building in Springwood.

  2. Niclin claims that Yatala failed to achieve practical completion as required by the contract and is, therefore, entitled to liquidated damages. Yatala raises many matters in its defence of the claim.

  3. By this application, Niclin seeks to have five questions determined separately.

    The principles to be applied on an application for a separate question

  4. Rule 483 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 provides:

    “The court may make an order for the decision by the court of a question separately from another question, whether before, at, or after the trial or continuation of the trial of the proceeding.”

  5. The ultimate question to be determined on an application under r 483 is whether the making of the order is “just and…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd v Yatala Formwork Pty Ltd 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
[2023] QSC 285
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd sought to determine separate questions of law and fact from Yatala Formwork Pty Ltd in relation to a building contract dispute. The case was before the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the primary issue was whether an order should be made for the determination of separate questions under section 27 of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 2005 (SA). The applicants argued that the resolution of certain questions could narrow the factual disputes and potentially resolve the entire dispute. They submitted that the questions were significant and distinct from the main dispute, and their determination would expedite the trial and reduce costs.

The court examined whether the questions were significant, distinct, and severable from the main dispute. It also considered whether their determination could narrow the issues in dispute or materially affect the outcome of the case. The court found that while the questions were significant, they were not entirely distinct from the main issues, and their resolution would not necessarily expedite the trial or reduce costs. Additionally, one of the proposed questions had the potential to resolve the entire dispute if answered in a particular way. The court concluded that making an order for the determination of separate questions would not be in the interests of justice.

The application to determine separate questions was dismissed. The court found that the proposed questions were not entirely distinct from the main issues, and their resolution would not necessarily expedite the trial or reduce costs. Additionally, one of the proposed questions had the potential to resolve the entire dispute if answered in a particular way. The court will hear the parties as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. I will hear the parties as to costs.

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.