Bartlett v Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd

[2016] QCA 119

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Building contracts
3. › Liquidated damages
4. › Entitlement to liquidated damages where builder abandoned works
5. › Whether duty to mitigate applies to contractual liquidated damages
6. › Whether owner's delay in terminating contract defeats entitlement to liquidated damages
1. Contract
2. › Building contracts
3. › Liquidated damages
4. › Mitigation of damages
5. › Whether mitigation principles apply to claim for agreed sum under contract as distinct from damages for breach
6. › White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413
1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative tribunals
3. › Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
4. › Appeals on questions of law
5. › Whether finding involved error of law or question of fact
6. › Whether no evidence to support finding
7. › Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 150, 151
1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative tribunals
3. › Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
4. › Leave to appeal
5. › Whether necessary to correct substantial injustice
6. › Whether reasonable argument of error
7. › Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 150(3)

Quick Take

The law of mitigation of damages is irrelevant to a claim for contractually prescribed liquidated damages under a building contract, because such a claim is for an agreed sum payable upon a specified event, not for damages compensating actual loss caused by breach. An owner's entitlement to liquidated damages for a builder's delay cannot be defeated merely by a finding that the owner acted 'unreasonably' in deferring termination of the contract after the builder's repudiation. A tribunal commits an error of law if it rejects a claim on a ground not raised in the pleadings or submissions, denying the party an opportunity to address the issue.