| CITATION: | Ryan v Worthington [2014] QCATA 277 |
| PARTIES: | Andrew William Ryan (Applicant/Appellant) |
| V | |
| Steven Bryan Worthington t/as Worthington Simmons Builders (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL189-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers and 5 September 2014 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Senior Member Oliver Member Deane |
| DELIVERED ON: | 23 September 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for leave to appeal or appeal is allowed. 2. The orders of the Tribunal dated 3 April 2013 are set aside. 3. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for determination according to law. 4. The proceeding is listed for a directions hearing on a date to be fixed. 5. The proceeding is listed for a further hearing on a date to be fixed. |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Andrew William Ryan represented by Mr MF Johnston of Counsel instructed by M&K Lawyers |
| RESPONDENT: | Steven Bryan Worthington t/as Worthington Simmons Builders represented by Mr DP Gardiner of Counsel instructed by Eaton Lawyers |
REASONS FOR DECISION
This matter was primarily heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) and was supplemented by a short oral hearing on 5 September 2014. Mr Worthington is a licensed building contractor. In January 2010 he contracted with Dr Ryan to perform extensive renovations on Dr Ryan’s residence. In August 2011 both parties purported to terminate the contract and subsequently claimed damages from the other. The learned Member’s substantive findings are contained in her reasons dated 3 April 2013. Essentially the learned Member found that Mr Worthington had validly terminated the contract and was entitled to…
Continue reading Ryan v Worthington
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ryan v Worthington [2014] QCATA 277
- Case
- [2014] QCATA 277
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved whether there was an error in the determination of loss and damage, whether there was a breach of procedural fairness, whether the reasons for the decision were adequate, whether the claim for an extension of time was made within a reasonable time, and whether the reasons for increased time were reasonably foreseeable when the contract was entered into. The court was required to consider these issues in light of the evidence and submissions presented by both parties.
The court found that there were errors in the determination of loss and damage, a breach of procedural fairness, and inadequate reasons for the decision. The court held that the claim for an extension of time was made within a reasonable time, but the reasons for increased time were not reasonably foreseeable when the contract was entered into. The court was of the view that the Tribunal had not properly considered all the evidence and submissions before it, and had not provided adequate reasons for its decision.
Accordingly, the court allowed the application for leave to appeal or appeal, set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 3 April 2013, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for determination according to law. The proceeding was listed for a directions hearing and a further hearing on dates to be fixed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for leave to appeal or appeal is allowed.
2. The orders of the Tribunal dated 3 April 2013 are set aside.
3. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for determination according to law.
4. The proceeding is listed for a directions hearing on a date to be fixed.
5. The proceeding is listed for a further hearing on a date to be fixed.
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.