| CITATION: | Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 266 |
| PARTIES: | Clem Ricchetti Angela Ricchetti Bruno Ricchetti (Applicants/Appellants) |
| v | |
| Lanbuilt Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL023-11 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | 7 June 2011 |
| HEARD AT: | Townsville |
| DECISION OF: | Justice Alan Wilson, President Ms Joanne Browne, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 15 September 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Townsville |
ORDERS MADE: | Application for leave to appeal refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | BUILDING DISPUTE – BUILDING CONTRACTS – DEFECTIVE BUILDING WORK – LEAVE TO APPEAL – QUESTIONS OF FACT OR MIXED LAW AND FACT – where applicants and respondent entered into a building contract – where dispute arose as to defective building work – where respondent sought final payment for completed building works – where Member found building works had reached practical completion – where Member also accepted expert evidence that some works were defective and required rectification – where Member ordered applicants to pay for work completed – where applicants allege Member’s decision contain typographical errors and errors of fact and law – whether Member erred in finding practical completion had been reached – whether there was a public advantage to grant leave to apply Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Leases Tribunal [1996] 2 Qd R 462, cited |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Clem & Angela Ricchetti and Bruno Ricchetti represented by Mr A W Collins of Counsel, instructed by Boulton Cleary & Kern Lawyers |
| RESPONDENT: | Lanbuilt Pty Ltd represented by Mr A J Hockings of Counsel, instructed by Purcell Taylor Lawyers |
REASONS FOR DECISION
President:
I have had the advantage of reading draft Reasons prepared by Ms Browne. I agree with them, and with the orders she proposes.
It is regrettable that the learned Senior Member’s reasons for his decision contained typographical and other errors. That said, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) specifically provides for the correction of decisions containing clerical mistakes, miscalculations of figures or errors arising from accidental slips, or omissions.[1] Many of the errors of which the applicants complain can be easily remedied through this legislative provision. Naturally, I am sorry that the Ricchettis are offended and concerned that their name has been misspelt.
[1]Section 135.
That aside, however, it has not been shown that there is any inadequacy in the reasons constituting an error of law. As…
Continue reading Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ricchetti v Lanbuilt Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 266
- Case
- [2011] QCATA 266
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Member had erred in finding that practical completion had been reached and whether there was a public advantage in granting leave to appeal. The applicants argued that the Member’s decision contained typographical errors and that the decision-making process had been flawed. They also contended that the court should consider the public advantage of allowing the appeal, given the potential implications for similar building disputes. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the Member's findings were correct and that there was no public advantage in permitting the appeal.
In considering these issues, the court focused on the factual findings made by the Member and whether those findings were supported by the evidence. The court also examined whether there were any significant legal errors in the decision-making process. After a thorough review, the court found that the Member’s decision was based on a correct interpretation of the evidence and that there was no substantial error in law or fact. Furthermore, the court concluded that there was no compelling public advantage to be gained from allowing the appeal, as the case did not present a significant point of law or a novel factual situation that would benefit the broader public.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The decision of the Member was upheld, and the applicants were required to pay for the completed building works as ordered.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal refused.
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.