SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R J Neller Building P/L v Ainsworth [2008] QCA 397 PARTIES: R J NELLER BUILDING PTY LTD ACN 097 945 581
(respondent)
v
KJERULF DAVID AINSWORTH
(applicant)FILE NO/S: Appeal No 7018 of 2008
DC No 95 of 2007DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Application for Stay of Execution ORIGINATING
COURT:District Court at Maroochydore DELIVERED ON: 9 December 2008 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 5 November 2008 JUDGES: Keane and Fraser JJA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders madeORDER:
1. Application for leave to appeal struck out 2. Application for leave to amend the notice of appeal struck out 3. Application for stay of execution refused 4. Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of each of the applications to be assessed on the standard basis CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – WHEN REFUSED – where the respondent was successful in an adjudication of its claim for payment from the applicant for work performed under a construction contract – where the respondent obtained an enforcement warrant against property owned by the applicant based upon the adjudication certificate – where the applicant commenced proceedings against the respondent seeking an order that the adjudication be set aside and damages for breach of contract – where the applicant applied to have the enforcement warrant set aside – where the applicant applied for a stay of the enforcement warrant – whether the learned primary judge erred in dismissing the applications – whether this Court may order a stay of the enforcement warrant pursuant to r 800 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – STATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS – where the applicant engaged the respondent to carry out renovations to his property – where the applicant, in signing the standard form contract, declared that he is not a "resident owner" – where the respondent carried out the work – where the applicant refused to make all payments to the respondent for the work completed – where the respondent sought to rely upon the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the applicant now claims to be a "resident owner" – whether the provisions of the Act apply to the contract between the applicant and respondent Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld),
s 3, s 31, s 99, s 100
Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld), Sch 2
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 800Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685,
cited
Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport (2004) 61 NSWLR 421;
[2004] NSWCA 394, cited
Cook's Construction P/L v Stork Food Systems Aust P/L
[2008] QCA 322, considered
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Vic) v Yosemite
Afforestation Pty Ltd (1988) 19 ATR…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R J Neller Building Pty Ltd v Ainsworth 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
- [2008] QCA 397
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the applications and whether this Court could order a stay of the enforcement warrant pursuant to rule 800 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The central issue was whether the court had the authority to grant a stay under the circumstances and if the change in circumstances warranted a re-exercise of the discretion.
The Court found that it had grave doubts whether rule 800 permitted this Court to grant the stay sought by Ainsworth. Even if the Court considered that it had the authority to grant the stay, it would decline to exercise the discretion in Ainsworth’s favour. The Court concluded that the primary judge’s decision was correct, and the application for leave to appeal, the application for leave to amend the notice of appeal, and the application for a stay of execution should all be refused. Consequently, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of each of the applications to be assessed on the standard basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Application for leave to appeal struck out
2.
Application for leave to amend the notice of appeal struck out
3.
Application for stay of execution refused
4.
Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of each of the applications to be assessed on the standard basis
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.