Schneekloth v James Mullins Constructions - [2015] QCAT 361

CITATION:	Schneekloth v James Mullins Constructions [2015] QCAT 361
PARTIES:	Amanda Schneekloth (Applicant)
v
James Mullins Constructions (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

REO009-15

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

7 September 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown

DELIVERED ON:

7 September 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for reopening is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Reopening - grounds for reopening - decision by consent following compulsory conference - whether matter heard and decided by Tribunal - power to reopen

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 61, s 136, s 137, s 138, Schedule 3 - Dictionary
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 92, Schedule – Dictionary

Bielby v Bielby & McGrath [2010] QCAT 649

Layne v Samjam Investments Pty Ltd t/as
Atkinson Dam Waterfront Caravan Park [2015]

QCAT 58

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this application about?

James Mullins Constructions (“Mullins”) undertook building works for Amanda Schneekloth. Ms Schneekloth subsequently filed an application in the Tribunal. She claimed that the works were defective. Following a compulsory conference in April 2015 the matter was resolved and a decision by consent made by the Tribunal.
Ms Schneekloth now applies to the Tribunal to reopen the proceedings.

What does Ms Schneekloth say?

Ms Schneekloth says that Mullins has failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal relating to the performance of building rectification work. She has filed material in the Tribunal setting forth the relevant history of the dispute between herself and Mullins. In her application to reopen, Ms Schneekloth seeks orders from the Tribunal that the decision made following the compulsory conference be varied to require Mullins to complete the rectification works within a new timeframe. Ms Schneekloth seeks further orders that in the event the works are not completed by Mullins within the varied timeframe, that Mullins pay to her an amount of money by way of damages.
In her submissions to the Tribunal, Ms Schneekloth states that “The ground for reopening exists in the circumstances.” The submissions go on to articulate those grounds as: “the detriment and prejudice caused to the Applicant by relying on the Order, performing the obligation in the order at great financial cost to herself and suffering the injustice and costs from the Respondent failing to comply with the Orders.”[1]
[1]Applicant’s submissions – para 20.
Ms Schneekloth says that the rectification work has not been satisfactorily performed and that further works will be required to be undertaken.[2]
[2]Affidavit of Amanda Schneekloth filed 02.09.15 – paras 33-34.

What does Mullins say?

The submissions and affidavit filed by Mullins do not deal specifically with the basis of the application to reopen the proceedings. Rather, they respond to the issues raised by Ms Schneekloth in her affidavit and other material in relation to the original building works and the rectification works.

Discussion

If a matter…

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 Schneekloth v James Mullins Constructions

Details

AGLC: Schneekloth v James Mullins Constructions [2015] QCAT 361
Case: [2015] QCAT 361
Decision Date: 7 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Schneekloth, the appellant, and James Mullins Constructions, the respondent. The dispute revolves around a construction contract and the appellant's request for the respondent to reopen the case. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) heard the matter. The appellant sought to reopen the case to address alleged procedural unfairness and new evidence. The respondent opposed the application on the basis that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the reopening.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the application to reopen was made within a reasonable time, whether the application disclosed a matter that warranted the case being reopened, and whether reopening the case would be in the interests of justice. The Tribunal examined the application under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009, particularly rule 92, which governs the reopening of cases. The appellant needed to demonstrate that the application met the criteria set out in the rules and that it was just and equitable to reopen the case.

The Tribunal found that the application to reopen was not made within a reasonable time and did not disclose a matter that warranted reopening. The Tribunal held that the appellant's new evidence did not change the outcome of the case and that reopening the case would not be in the interests of justice. The Tribunal considered the principles of finality and the importance of parties conducting their cases efficiently and effectively. The Tribunal dismissed the application for reopening and noted that the appellant had not demonstrated that the case should be reopened.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for reopening and made no further orders. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of parties conducting their cases efficiently and effectively and the principle of finality in litigation. The Tribunal found that the application did not meet the criteria for reopening and that it was not just and equitable to reopen the case. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had not demonstrated that the case should be reopened.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for reopening is dismissed.

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.