Rendermeister Pty Ltd v Macol Pty Ltd

The dispute between Rendermeister Pty Ltd and Macol Pty Ltd revolves around rendering work that Rendermeister claims was defective and incomplete. The primary issue before the court was to determine whether a binding agreement to settle the dispute had been reached and, if so, what the terms of that agreement were. If no such agreement existed, the court had to decide whether the work was defective or incomplete and, if so, what Rendermeister could recover for the work done. The court also had to address whether the correct parties were involved in the proceedings and whether any post-claim assignment of the cause of action could cure the defect.

The court determined that the contracting parties were Mr Kammerlocher, trading as Rendermeister, and Macol Pty Ltd. The objective facts showed that Mr Kammerlocher, who held a relevant license, was the contracting party for Rendermeister, and Macol Pty Ltd was the contracting party for the other side. The assignment of the cause of action by the correct party to the wrong party was deemed effective under section 199 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), as sufficient notice was given to the debtor, curing the procedural defect.

On the issue of the compromise agreement, the court found that the parties had indeed reached a binding agreement on 1 December 2008. The agreement included terms such as Mr Willich taking over the workers, Rendermeister supplying further materials, and the payment for the work done so far. The court calculated the value of the work done up to that date at $12,000 plus GST, and a reasonable price for the additional materials supplied.

The court ordered Macol Pty Ltd to pay Rendermeister Pty Ltd $5,087.51. The counterclaim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The court declined to award interest and costs, considering the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties.