APPEAL ALLOWED.
ORDER THAT THE CLAIM OF CHARGE MADE BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE
SUBCONTRACTORS' CHARGES ACT 1974, DATED 19 MAY 1998, IN RESPECT OF
MONIES PAYABLE BY THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HOUSING TO THE APPELLANT BE
CANCELLED.
APPELLANT TO HAVE ITS COSTS HERE AND BELOW.
RESPONDENT GRANTED AN INDEMNITY CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 15 OF
THE APPEAL COSTS FUND ACT 1973.

Government purposes.
Lower Hutt City v Attorney-General [1965] NZLR 65
Wellington City Corporation v Victoria University of Wellington;
Attorney-General (third party) [1975] 2 NZLR 301

Zullo Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors v Sutton Appeal No 8045 of 1998,
15 December 1998

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 13
Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 s 42
Queensland Building Services Authority Regulations 1992 cl 3A
Subcontractors' Charges Act 1974 ss 5, 10

Counsel:	Mr P A Keane QC, with him Mr T P Sullivan, for the appellant Mr B D O'Donnell QC, with him Mr T Matthews, for the respondent
Solicitors:	Ebsworth & Ebsworth for the appellant Barwicks Wisewoulds for the respondent
Hearing Date:	4 March 1999

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No 9823 of 1998

Brisbane

Before Davies JA
Thomas JA
Wilson J
[Northbuild Const P/L v Lockton]
BETWEEN:
NORTHBUILD CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD
ACN 011 063 764

(Applicant) Appellant

AND:
PETER JAMES LOCKTON
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE LOCKTON FAMILY TRUST trading as
P J LOCKTON FABRICATIONS

(Respondent) Respondent

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DAVIES JA AND WILSON J

Judgment delivered 26 March 1999

This is an appeal from a refusal by a Supreme Court judge to order that a claim of charge
under the Subcontractors' Charges Act 1974 be cancelled. The applicant for the order, which
is now the appellant, is a building contractor, which, on or about 16 June 1997, entered into a
contract with the Crown in right of the State of Queensland through the Director-General,
Department of Public Works and Housing for the redevelopment of the Salisbury State High
School. The respondent, who is a steel fabricator, entered into a contract with the appellant in July
1997 for the supply and affixing of structural steel, metal work and handrails required under the first contract. It was common ground that the appellant was a contractor and the respondent a
subcontractor within the meaning of the Subcontractors' Charges Act.
On 19 May 1998 the respondent gave to the Director-General, Department of Public
Works and Housing a notice of claim…

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.

Continue reading Re Northbuild Constructions Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Northbuild Constructions Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 91
Case: [1999] QCA 91
Decision Date: 26/03/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal by Northbuild Constructions Pty Ltd (Northbuild) against a decision of the Supreme Court which had refused to cancel a claim of charge made by Peter James Lockton (Lockton) under the Subcontractors' Charges Act 1974. Northbuild was a building contractor engaged by the Crown in right of the Director-General, Department of Public Works and Housing to redevelop the Salisbury State High School. Lockton was a subcontractor engaged by Northbuild to supply and affix structural steel, metal work, and handrails required under the first contract. The central legal issue was whether Lockton was entitled to any monetary consideration for the work it did under its contract with Northbuild. Lockton contended that the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 did not apply to its work because it was performed on Crown land for Government purposes. The Court of Appeal allowed Northbuild's appeal and cancelled Lockton's claim of charge, holding that the Queensland Building Services Authority Act did apply to Lockton's work and that Lockton was not entitled to any monetary consideration for that work. The Court rejected Lockton's argument that the Act did not bind the Crown or derogate from any prerogative right of the Crown. The Court concluded that the Act did not bind the Crown but also did not exempt independent contractors who performed building work for the Crown from its operation.

Orders