Cant Contracting P/L v Casella & Anor

[2006] QCA 538

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Building, Engineering and Related Contracts
2. › Remuneration
3. › Recovery on quantum meruit
4. › Unlicensed builder
5. › Whether progress payment regime under Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) overrides disentitlement under s 42(3) Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld)
6. › Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), ss 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19
7. › Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld), s 42
1. Statutes
2. › Construction
3. › Interaction between statutes
4. › Whether later Act impliedly overrides earlier Act
5. › Whether progress payment entitlement under Payments Act subject to licensing requirements under Building Services Authority Act
6. › Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 19(4)(b)(ii)
7. › Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld), s 42(3)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Summary judgment
3. › Whether triable issue existed
4. › Whether defence based on builder's lack of licence precluded by s 19(4)(b)(ii) of Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld)

Quick Take

An unlicensed builder in Queensland cannot avail itself of the progress payment regime under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) because s 42(3) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld) disentitles such a builder to 'any monetary or other consideration' for building work, which includes progress payments. The NSW decision in Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport does not apply in Queensland because s 42(3) is materially wider than s 10 of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). A respondent to a payment claim by an unlicensed builder is not precluded by s 19(4)(b)(ii) from raising the licensing issue.