v FLUOR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ABN 28 004 511 942 (first defendant) AND FLUOR CORPORATION (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BS 12939/16
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Applications
ORIGINATING
Supreme Court of Queensland
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:
8 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING
Directions hearing: 18 and 23 May 2023
DATES:
Hearing (2023): 17-21 and 24-28 July 2023 Directions hearing: 30 August 2023 Directions hearing: 7 February 2024 Hearing (2024): 12-16, 19-23, 26-29 February 2024, 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-22 and 25-27 March 2024
JUDGE:
Freeburn J
ORDER:
The orders are as follows:
(a)
the application filed by the defendants on 4 April 2023 is dismissed;
(b)
pursuant to rule 505D of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, the application filed on 21 August 2023 is allowed in that the court accepts the opinions and findings of the report of the referees to the court dated 14 July 2023;
(c)
that acceptance of the report of the referees is subject to the qualifications and variations stated in these reasons;
(d)
judgment will be given for the plaintiff for a sum, including interest, to be determined in accordance with these reasons;
ii
(e)
the court will hear the parties on the appropriate orders and directions and on the calculation of interest, and on costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TRIAL – MODE OF TRIAL – ASSESSOR, SPECIAL REFEREE ETC – where the plaintiff, Santos, and the defendant, Fluor entered into a contract for the large scale construction of a coal-seam gas project – where the project was over time and over budget – where Santos commenced proceedings for alleged overpayments totalling over $1.4 billion, approximately $140 million for an alleged contravention of Australian Consumer Law, and liquidated damages of $15 million for an alleged failure of Fluor to reach Mechanical Completion by the contractual dates – where all questions arising on the pleadings were referred to three referees for determination – where after 62 sitting days, the referees made a report – where Fluor challenged the findings, and made an application for the court to set aside the orders pursuant to r 502 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where Santos made a cross application for the court to adopt the report pursuant to r 505D of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether the court should set aside the orders – whether the court should adopt the report
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS – where the Court has referred questions arising on pleadings to three referees – where the defendants contend that that the referees failed to comply with the Referral Order – where the defendants argue the referees have not determined the issues on the pleadings – where the defendants contend the referees focussed on the essential arguments of each party on…
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 Santos v Fluor
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Santos v Fluor [2025] QSC 184
Case
[2025] QSC 184
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Santos and Fluor were parties to a significant contract for the construction of a coal-seam gas project. Santos alleged that Fluor had made overpayments totalling over $1.4 billion, including approximately $140 million for an alleged contravention of Australian Consumer Law, and liquidated damages of $15 million for Fluor's failure to achieve Mechanical Completion by the contractual dates. All questions arising from the pleadings were referred to three referees for determination. After 62 sitting days, the referees issued a report. Fluor contested the findings and applied to the court to set aside the orders under rule 502 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). In response, Santos applied to the court to adopt the referees' report under rule 505D of the same rules. The court was required to determine whether to set aside the orders or to adopt the report.
The court considered the process and the findings of the referees. It evaluated the validity of the referees' decisions and whether they were based on proper legal and factual considerations. The court also assessed the application to set aside the orders, examining whether the referees had made errors in law or procedure. Additionally, the court examined Santos' application to adopt the report, determining if the referees' findings were consistent with the evidence and the applicable legal standards. The court's analysis involved a detailed review of the referees' report, the evidence presented, and the applicable legal principles.
After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the referees' findings were correct and properly made. The court found that there were no grounds to set aside the orders. Consequently, the court adopted the referees' report. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence, the application of legal principles, and the proper functioning of the referral process.
The orders made by the court were that the findings and recommendations of the referees were adopted. Fluor's application to set aside the orders was dismissed, and Santos' application to adopt the report was granted. The court's decision upheld the referees' findings, providing finality to the complex dispute between the parties.