Stowe Australia Pty Ltd v MCC Pty Ltd

[2022] QCAT 31

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Stowe Australia Pty Ltd v MCC Pty Ltd [2022] QCAT 31

PARTIES:

STOWE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

(applicant)

V

MCC PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL002-21

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 February 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

MCC Pty Ltd is required to pay Stowe Australia Pty Ltd the amount of $13,107.06 within 14 days of the date of this order.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – where payment outstanding

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 102

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 4 January 2021, Stowe Australia Pty Ltd (‘Stowe’) lodged an application for commercial building disputes with the Tribunal.  The named respondent was MCC Pty Ltd (‘MCC’).  The amount claimed was $12,755.06 plus costs of $352.

2. The documentation in this matter tells the story:

   (a)On 25 January 2019, Stowe issued quote 7501 to MCC.  The quote related to the audio-visual component of fire rectification works to the science block at Laidley State High School.  The quote was for $12,755.96 including GST.

   (b)On 15 May 2019, Stowe sent an email to MCC attaching revised quote 7501.  The quote was for $9,039.014.  The email stated: “Please note that as per spec, the projectors and document cameras are to be supplied by the school.”

   (c)On 28 June 2019, MCC sent Stowe an email attaching purchase order 53255.  The purchase order stated: “We accept your Quite 7501 for AV.”  The purchase order was for $12,755.06 including GST.

   (d)On 15 August 2019, Stowe sent an email to MCC attaching revised quote 10143.  The quote included $7,089.47 in “Works Performed – Cabling Infrastructure” and $5,031.39 in “Works to Come – Supply of Screens & Installation of Projectors”.  A discount of $525.35 was applied.  The email stated: “In short, there is no difference in cost between this and our existing PO value (Discount Applied), this quote however keeps the paper trail up to date and clearly outlines the expectations from our end to ensure no further costs are incurred to finalise the project.”

   (e)On 23 August 2019, Kurt from MCC sent Stowe an email in the following terms: “Please go ahead”.

   (f)On 11 October 2019, Stowe issued invoice number 503197 to MCC in the amount of $12,755.06.  The invoice described the works as: “Science D Block – Standard Projector System Infrastructure – As Per Stowe Quotation 7501 – Please Refer to Your Order No 53255.”

   (g)On 16 October 2019, MCC issued a subcontractor payment schedule to Stowe assessing an entitlement 0% of the amount claimed.  The schedule commented: “These works are not part of our Scope of Works.  Please invoice Laidley State High School Directly”.

   (h)On 29 October 2019, Stowe issued a payment claim to MCC in the amount of $12,755.06.  The claim was made pursuant to purchase order 53255.

3. MCC claims that the screens and projectors were not part of its contract, and has refused to pay Stowe.

4. In an affidavit dated 23 June 2021, Christopher Scroope, Managing Director of MCC, stated:

   It is unfortunate that the MCC employee Kurt accepted the amended quote and did not query it, but this sometimes happens towards the end of a construction project when the site workers are under considerable pressure to complete the project in the allotted time.  We did advise Stowe that Kurt had no responsibility within MCC to place orders.

5. In a statement dated 8 July 2021, Aaron Gregg, Queensland Branch Manager of Stowe, stated:

   MCC did not advise Stowe that Kurt had “no responsibility (or authority) within MCC to place orders”.

6. Whatever the scope of the original contract, it is clear that the contract was varied by agreement by the issuing of revised quote 10143 on 15 August 2019, and the direction from MCC to “Please go ahead” on 23 August 2019.  The contract as varied specifically included screens and projectors.

7. I accept Mr Gregg’s evidence that he was not advised that Kurt was lacking in actual authority.  The email from Kurt was sent from a MCC email address, and does not indicate that approval was required by another person at MCC.  There is no documentary evidence that Stowe was told prior to the completion of the works that Kurt lacked actual authority.  In my view, Kurt clearly had apparent or ostensible authority to act on behalf of MCC, and Stowe was entitled to rely on this.  Any issues relating to Kurt’s authority are internal issues for MCC, not for Stowe.

8. In those circumstances, MCC has a clear contractual obligation to pay $12,755.06 to Stowe.  I will so order.

9. Section s 102(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) provides that the Tribunal may make a costs order if the interests of justice require it. Stowe have sought the precise amount contained in purchase order 53255 issued by MCC. I have found that MCC had no valid ground for refusing payment. In those circumstances, I consider that it is in the interests of justice to order the MCC to pay the filing fee of $352.