| CITATION: | Potts v T & M Buckley Pty Ltd [2011] QCAT 469 |
| PARTIES: | Phillip Potts |
| v | |
| T & M Buckley Pty Ltd t/as Shailer Constructions |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | B141-04 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Building matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Ann Fitzpatrick, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 11 October 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | (a) The Decision in this matter, dated 14 December, 2010 be corrected so that the money ordered to be paid pursuant to a quantum meruit based on restitution is $4,009.97, not $5,089.97. Any consequential corrections to the Orders made on 14 December, 2010 are to be made. (b) The respondent pay to the applicant the following, less moneys already paid to the applicant pursuant to the Orders made on 14 December, 2010: Unpaid variations $ 5,818.00 GST $ 581.80 Quantum meruit $ 4,009.97 GST $ 400.99 Retention Money $ 3,535.00 GST $ 353.50 Interest $ 5,675.86 TOTAL $20,375.12 (c) The applicant is to deliver within 7 days of the date of this Decision, a tax invoice to the respondent in relation to the amounts ordered. The respondent must pay the GST component to the applicant within 21 days of receipt of the tax invoice. Apart from the GST component, the respondent must pay the remaining sums, not already paid, within 21 days of the date of this decision. (d) The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings on a standard basis to be assessed on the Magistrate’s Court scale of costs. (e) The applicant’s costs be assessed as follows: (i) the applicant shall deliver to the respondent an itemised claim for costs referring to the relevant items contained in the Magistrates Court scale of costs; (ii) if within 14 days of that delivery, the parties have not agreed to an amount of costs, the costs shall be assessed by Hickey and Garrett, Legal costs Assessors, Level 21, 141 Queen Street, Brisbane 4000; (iii) the respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs (as agreed or assessed) within 14 days of such agreement or assessment. (f) The respondent’s application for costs is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Final decision – interest – GST – costs in pending proceeding Effect of “all up” offer to settle – costs awarded on standard basis Queensland Building Services Act 1991, s 67P Hallett and Ors v Queensland Building Services Authority (2011) QCAT 355 applied |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Potts v T & M Buckley 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] QCAT 469
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the previous decision and found that the quantum meruit amount should be corrected from $5,089.97 to $4,009.97. Additionally, the court considered the interest that should be awarded on the amounts owed, determining that interest should be calculated from the date of the original decision. Regarding costs, the court found that the respondent's application for costs should be dismissed, and the applicant was entitled to costs on a standard basis. The court also ruled on the proper assessment and payment of these costs.
The court ordered that the previous decision be corrected to reflect the accurate quantum meruit amount and that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $20,375.12, inclusive of unpaid variations, GST, quantum meruit, retention money, and interest. The respondent was also required to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings on a standard basis, with specific directions for the assessment and payment of those costs. The applicant was to provide a tax invoice within seven days of the decision, and the respondent had to pay the GST component within 21 days of receiving the invoice. The respondent's application for costs was dismissed.
In conclusion, the court's decision not only corrected the quantum meruit amount but also established a clear pathway for the respondent to pay the owed monies, including interest and GST. The court also set out a detailed process for the assessment and payment of costs, ensuring that the applicant could recover their legal expenses.
Orders
Orders of the court
(a) The Decision in this matter, dated 14 December, 2010 be corrected so that the money ordered to be paid pursuant to a quantum meruit based on restitution is $4,009.97, not $5,089.97. Any consequential corrections to the Orders made on 14 December, 2010 are to be made.
(b) The respondent pay to the applicant the following, less moneys already paid to the applicant pursuant to the Orders made on 14 December, 2010:
Unpaid variations $ 5,818.00
GST $ 581.80
Quantum meruit $ 4,009.97
GST $ 400.99
Retention Money $ 3,535.00
GST $ 353.50
Interest $ 5,675.86
TOTAL $20,375.12
(c) The applicant is to deliver within 7 days of the date of this Decision, a tax invoice to the respondent in relation to the amounts ordered. The respondent must pay the GST component to the applicant within 21 days of receipt of the tax invoice. Apart from the GST component, the respondent must pay the remaining sums, not already paid, within 21 days of the date of this decision.
(d) The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings on a standard basis to be assessed on the Magistrate’s Court scale of costs.
(e) The applicant’s costs be assessed as follows:
(i) the applicant shall deliver to the respondent an itemised claim for costs referring to the relevant items contained in the Magistrates Court scale of costs;
(ii) if within 14 days of that delivery, the parties have not agreed to an amount of costs, the costs shall be assessed by Hickey and Garrett, Legal costs Assessors, Level 21, 141 Queen Street, Brisbane 4000;
(iii) the respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs (as agreed or assessed) within 14 days of such agreement or assessment.
(f) The respondent’s application for costs 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.