Ryan v Worthington

Case [2015] QCA 201

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ryan v Worthington [2015] QCA 201

PARTIES:

ANDREW WILLLIAM RYAN
(applicant)
v
STEVEN BRYAN WORTHINGTON
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10142 of 2014
QCAT No 189 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – [2014] QCATA 277

DELIVERED ON:

23 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 May 2015

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides JJA and Flanagan J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The application for leave to appeal is granted.

2.   The appeal is dismissed.

3.   The parties have leave to make such submissions as they may be advised as to the costs of the application and appeal, to be filed and served within 14 days of today.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant wanted to relocate, extend and add to his house – where the applicant entered into a building contract with the respondent – where the applicant purported to terminate the contract as the works had not been completed within 1.5 times the initial contract period, allowing for delays – where the respondent submitted that the applicant breached the contract by terminating – where the respondent also purported to terminate the contract on the basis that there was an asserted failure to provide free and uninterrupted access, pay the last two progress claims, and that the applicant had taken back possession of the works without consent – where the respondent commenced proceedings with QCAT – where at first instances the respondent was successful – where the applicant appealed – where QCAT’s Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the orders, and remitted the matter “for determination according to law” – where the applicant seeks leave to challenge the decision of the Appeal Tribunal – whether the Appeal Tribunal erred in its approach to the construction of the contract; the proper construction of clause 15.1 and 21.1 of the contract – whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether the Appeal Tribunal fell into error by finding that it had no alternative but to remit the matter

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld), s 90
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 146, s 150

Hodges v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 576, overturned
Life Insurance Co of Australia Ltd v Phillips (1925) 36 CLR 60; [1925] HCA 18, cited
Mackay Sugar Ltd v Sugar Australia Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 233, cited
Pilgrim Shipping Co Ltd v State Trading Corporation of India Ltd (The Hadjitsakos) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 356, cited
Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd [1982] AC 724, cited
Re Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [1999] 1 Qd R 287; [1997] QCA 447, distinguished
Ryan v Worthington [2014] QCATA 277, related
Studorp Ltd v Robinson

Continue reading Ryan v Worthington

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ryan v Worthington [2015] QCA 201
Case
[2015] QCA 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ryan v Worthington, the parties were engaged in a dispute arising from a building contract. Dr Ryan, the applicant, sought to relocate, extend, and add to his house, entering into a building contract with Worthington, the respondent. The dispute centred on the termination of the contract, with Dr Ryan terminating the contract for failure to complete the works within the stipulated period, allowing for delays. Worthington argued that Dr Ryan breached the contract by terminating it and also sought to terminate the contract itself on various grounds, including failure to provide access, non-payment of progress claims, and unauthorized possession of the works. Worthington initiated proceedings with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). At the first instance, Worthington was successful. However, Dr Ryan appealed the decision, and the QCAT Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the orders, and remitted the matter for determination according to law. Dr Ryan subsequently sought leave to challenge the decision of the Appeal Tribunal.

The legal issues before the court involved the proper construction of specific clauses in the contract, specifically clause 15.1 and 21.1, and whether the Appeal Tribunal erred in its approach to these clauses. Dr Ryan argued that the Appeal Tribunal had erred in its interpretation and application of the contract terms, while Worthington contended that the Appeal Tribunal correctly identified procedural unfairness and the need for a rehearing. The court also needed to determine whether leave to appeal should be granted and if the Appeal Tribunal erred in finding that it had no alternative but to remit the matter.

The court found that, despite Dr Ryan's partial success, the appropriate order was to remit the matter to the original tribunal for determination according to law. The Appeal Tribunal had the authority to remit the matter due to the procedural unfairness experienced by Dr Ryan before the original tribunal. Counsel for Dr Ryan conceded that the Appeal Tribunal could indeed remit the matter based on the procedural fairness issue. The court concluded that the orders proposed by Morrison JA were appropriate and granted leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal, and allowed the parties to make submissions on the costs of the application and appeal. The judges, Philippides JA and Flanagan J, concurred with Morrison JA's reasons and proposed orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The parties have leave to make such submissions as they may be advised as to the costs of the application and appeal, to be filed and served within 14 days of today.

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

Even though Dr Ryan has had a degree of success, I consider that the appropriate order is that made by the Appeal Tribunal, that is the matter should be remitted to the Member, for determination according to law and in the light of these reasons. Indeed Counsel for Dr Ryan conceded that it was open to the Appeal Tribunal to remit the matter given its finding that Dr Ryan had been denied procedural fairness by the Member.[35][35]Appeal transcript T 1-33 line 10.Conclusion For the reasons given above I would make the following orders:1.The application for leave to appeal is granted.2.The appeal is dismissed.3.The parties have leave to make such submissions as they may be advised as to the costs of the application and appeal, to be filed and served within 14 days of today. PHILIPPIDES JA: I agree that the orders proposed by Morrison JA should be made for the reasons stated by his Honour. FLANAGAN J: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Morrison JA. I agree with those reasons and with the orders proposed by his Honour.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.