T & M Buckley P/L v 57 Moss Rd P/L

[2010] QCA 381

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Building, engineering and related contracts
3. › Remuneration
4. › Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments
5. › Payment claims under Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld)
6. › Whether payment claim sufficiently identified construction work
7. › Correct test for validity of payment claim under s 17(2)(a)
8. › Whether claim must purport in reasonable way to identify work such that basis of claim reasonably comprehensible to recipient
9. › Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), ss 17, 18, 19
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Summary judgment
3. › Application for summary judgment based on statutory payment claim
4. › Whether payment claim severable into valid and invalid parts
5. › Whether trial judge erred in refusing summary judgment on part of claim
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 292, r 295
1. Appeal
2. › Application for leave to appeal
3. › District Court decision below jurisdictional limit
4. › Whether substantial injustice demonstrated
5. › Whether important question of law involved
6. › Application to adduce further evidence on appeal
7. › Whether evidence available at first instance

Quick Take

The correct test for validity of a payment claim under s 17(2)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) is whether the claim purports in a reasonable way to identify the construction work such that the basis of the claim is reasonably comprehensible to the recipient. The test of 'precision and particularity to apprise the parties of the real issues in dispute' applies to payment schedules, not payment claims. A payment claim is not a nullity unless the failure to identify is patent on its face. The question of whether a partially invalid payment claim is severable remains open in Queensland.