Queensland Building Services Authority v Dragonstone Pty Ltd - [2004] QDC 78

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Queensland Building Services Authority v Dragonstone Pty Ltd [2004] QDC 078

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY

Appellant

v

DRAGONSTONE PTY LTD

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD3046/03; M12059/02

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 April 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 April 2004

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed with costs, order of magistrate set aside, in lieu thereof respondent’s application dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CORPORATIONS LAW – Reinstatement – effect of order for reinstatement – company in existence for all purposes.

PRACTICE – Application – title and contents of form – term “applicant” not to be used if proceeding started by claim.

Corporations Law s 601AH.

Re Future Life Enterprises Pty Ltd (1994) 33 NSWLR 559 – followed.

COUNSEL: A D McKinnon for the appellant
M J Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

QBSA Legal Services
Hatzis Lawyers for the respondent

The respondent company was deregistered under the Corporations Act 2001 on 9 April 1999. On 28 March 2001 the Chief Justice made an order pursuant to s 601AH of the Corporations Act 2001 that, “Dragonstone Pty Ltd be restored to the register for the purpose of action Linda Wood v Dragonstone Pty Ltd in the District Court held at Brisbane Plaint number 2997 of 1998.” I have to decide in effect whether that order took effect according to its terms, or whether the effect of that order was that the company was restored to the register for all purposes, not just for the purpose of that particular action.

That question arose in the following way. On 2 September 2002 the appellant authority filed a claim and statement of claim in the Magistrates Court seeking to recover from the respondent an amount not exceeding $50,000 alleged to have been paid out by the appellant, pursuant to an insurance policy issued under the Builders’ Registration and Home Owners Protection Act 1979 by the Builders’ Registration Board of Queensland, as a result of the negligence or breach of contract on the part of the defendant in carrying out engineering work, namely the assessment of a site and the design of footings and a slab system for the construction of a residence at Aratula. The work was alleged to have been done in 1991 and 1992. Subsequently there was damage to the house as a result of which in 1999 the owners claimed under the statutory insurance policy, responsibility for which had passed to the appellant under the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. During 2000 and 2001 the appellant paid a total of $40,470 under that policy for rectification work on the property. The appellant alleged in the Magistrates Court, that under the applicable statutory provisions it was entitled to recover that amount together with interest from the respondent.

On 23 May 2003 a deputy registrar signed a judgment in default of filing a notice of intention to defend that the defendant pay the plaintiff the amount of $44,021.47 (including interest and costs).…

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 Queensland Building Services Authority v Dragonstone 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: [2004] QDC 78
Decision Date: 21 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Queensland Building Services Authority v Dragonstone Pty Ltd, the dispute arose between the Queensland Building Services Authority and Dragonstone Pty Ltd. The central issue was the legal consequences of a reinstatement order in relation to a company's status and obligations. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the court was required to interpret the implications of a reinstatement order and whether it restored the company to existence for all purposes.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation and effect of a reinstatement order on a company's corporate status. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the reinstatement order restored the company to its pre-deregistration status, thereby making it a party capable of incurring liabilities and obligations as if it had never been deregistered. The court also needed to address whether the term "applicant" should be used in the title and contents of a form in proceedings initiated by a claim, rather than an application.

The court held that the reinstatement order did indeed restore the company to existence for all purposes, effectively reinstating it as if it had never been deregistered. This meant the company could incur liabilities and obligations post-reinstatement. Regarding the form, the court emphasised that the term "applicant" should not be used if the proceeding was initiated by a claim, as this could potentially mislead the court and the parties involved. The court concluded that the magistrate's order was erroneous and set it aside, dismissing the respondent's application with costs. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed with costs, order of magistrate set aside, in lieu thereof respondent’s application dismissed with 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.

CITATION:	Queensland Building Services Authority v Dragonstone Pty Ltd [2004] QDC 078
PARTIES:	QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY Appellant v DRAGONSTONE PTY LTD Respondent
FILE NO/S:	BD3046/03; M12059/02
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 April 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 April 2004
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal allowed with costs, order of magistrate set aside, in lieu thereof respondent’s application dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CORPORATIONS LAW – Reinstatement – effect of order for reinstatement – company in existence for all purposes. PRACTICE – Application – title and contents of form – term “applicant” not to be used if proceeding started by claim. Corporations Law s 601AH. Re Future Life Enterprises Pty Ltd (1994) 33 NSWLR 559 – followed.
COUNSEL:	A D McKinnon for the appellant M J Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	QBSA Legal Services Hatzis Lawyers for the respondent