SIDC Pty Ltd v GLK Machinery Pty Ltd
[2017] QCAT 45
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- SIDC Pty Ltd v GLK Machinery Pty Ltd[2017] QCAT 45
- Add to List
SIDC Pty Ltd v GLK Machinery Pty Ltd[2017] QCAT 45
SIDC Pty Ltd v GLK Machinery Pty Ltd[2017] QCAT 45
CITATION: | SIDC Pty Ltd v GLK Machinery Pty Ltd [2017] QCAT 45 |
PARTIES: | SIDC Pty Ltd (Applicant) v GLK Machinery Pty Ltd (ABN 54 115 444 810) (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCD116-16 |
MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
HEARING DATE: | 7 July 2016 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member McLean Williams |
DELIVERED ON: | 16 February 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | Judgement for the Applicant. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant the sum of $10,008.70 within 14 days. |
CATCHWORDS: | Minor Civil Dispute, non-payment for services rendered. |
APPEARANCES: |
|
APPLICANT: | Mr Paul Cooper, SIDC director, in person |
RESPONDENT: | Mr Rudi Sokac, GLK principal, in person |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]By an Application for minor civil dispute – minor debt filed in the Tribunal on 20 January 2016, SIDC Pty Ltd (‘SIDC’) claims the sum of $8,800 from GLK Machinery Pty Ltd (‘GLK’), which it says became due and payable on 21 June 2014. SIDC says that the sum remains unpaid, despite demand. In addition, SIDC claims the sum of $1,100 as interest, as well as the costs of bringing this claim, before QCAT.
- [2]In its Response to minor civil dispute – minor debt filed on 18 February 2016, GLK seeks the dismissal of SIDC’s claim, on the basis of it contending that the service provided by SIDC failed to meet GLK’s requirements, thus resulting in major rectification costs, asserted to be in excess of $24,000.
- [3]Despite the assertion of consequential damage, GLK brings no counterclaim against SIDC.
- [4]SIDC is a drafting company that prepares engineering drawings. GLK is a manufacturer of steel purlin manufacturing machines. Mr Paul Alan Cooper - who is the driving force behind SIDC - has extensive prior experience with the preparation of design drawings for these types of purlin manufacturing machines.
- [5]On a prior occasion, GLK had requested that SIDC prepare engineering drawings for a ‘C’ purlin machine, designed to GLK specifications. GLK already owned C purlin machines, built by GLK, and designed without any involvement by either SIDC or Mr Cooper. The C purlin machine drawings prepared by SIDC for GLK on this prior occasion were based on an old set of GLK blueprints that were marked up by Mr Rudi Sokac from GLK so as to indicate the design modifications that were to be included in the new C purlin machine plans, to be prepared by SIDC.
- [6]The C Purlin project was brought to a successful conclusion. I understand that there may have been some teething problems with the new C purlin machine design, yet SIDC and GLK collaborated to work through these issues, until a new C purlin machine was successfully commissioned. GLK paid all of SIDC’s invoices in relation to that project.
- [7]Some time afterwards, GLK requested that SIDC prepare plans for a ‘Z’ purlin machine. It is the preparation of this set of plans that has brought about the dispute between the parties.
- [8]Mr Cooper says that SIDC was instructed by Rudi Sokac that the Z purlin machine design was to be based on the existing GLK C purlin machine. Mr Cooper also says that he had advised that the proposed Z purlin machine should be based on the successful ‘Hayes’ design (with which Mr Cooper had some previous design involvement) - yet says that Mr Sokac was very clear in stipulating that the proposed Z purlin machine was to be based on the existing GLK C purlin design, lest GLK become embroiled in an intellectual property dispute with Hayes. This version of events is corroborated by an e-mail sent by Rudi Sokac at GLK to Paul Cooper at SIDC on 18 March 2015, after their dispute arose.
- [9]SIDC invoiced GLK $3,300 as the deposit amount on the work that it was to perform on the Z purlin machine plan, on 28 April 2014. According to its terms, that invoice was supposed to be paid within 30 days yet it was not paid, and remains unpaid. Despite non-payment of the deposit, SIDC commenced work on the Z purlin machine drawings.
- [10]Design drawings for the Z purlin machine were delivered by SIDC to GLK progressively commencing from May 2014, and GLK commenced to build the machine in accordance with those plans. SIDC delivered another invoice (No 186) on 21 May 2014 for $5,000, plus GST being the final payment cost for the Z machine drawings. To date, this invoice also remains unpaid.
- [11]Problems with the Z purlin machine design became apparent during construction and testing. In particular, Mr Sokac contacted Mr Cooper about problems on 12 September 2014, asking for further design assistance. It would seem that from that date forward, Mr Cooper visited the GLK factory premises on a number of occasions to further collaborate with GLK, and that SIDC also provided some additional drawings to GLK, at no further charge.
- [12]By about early October 2014, and still not as yet paid for SIDC’s services, Mr Cooper started to press more strenuously for payment, yet to no avail. On 16 October 2014 Mr Sokac advised that only once the new Z purlin machine had been accepted by his own client would GLK attend to payment of the SIDC invoices. Shortly afterwards, the tenor of Mr Sokac’s e-mails in response to Mr Cooper’s further requests for payment strengthened, with the message now becoming that there were fundamental problems with the design, that had to be thoroughly worked through by GLK to overcome the deficiencies in the original design and at considerable expense to GLK.
- [13]Things came to a head on 11 March 2015. On that date Mr Cooper sent an e-mail to Rudi Sokac, again requesting payment from GLK. Mr Sokac replied by e-mail later that day and advised that GLK were still sorting out problems with the design of the Z purlin machine, and to complain:
“[Y]ou were unable to see your way clear to visit during construction and testing, despite promising to do so on several occasions. We could have done with your assistance. On completion of outstanding work we will contact you and bring you up to date with the final outcome.”
- [14]Mr Cooper replied by e-mail later that same day indicating that the failure by GLK to pay SIDC’s invoices was well outside the terms of trade (7 days) expressed in the invoices. Mr Cooper also denied that he had failed to attend at the GLK premises in response to requests for his assistance, stating “I have visited you on many occasions at my cost every time (1.5 hours in travel). Not once have you come out to see me”. Finally, Mr Cooper denied that any problems that may have become evident in the Z purlin machine design were his responsibility, as all that SIDC had been retained to do was to prepare drawings to reflect GLK’s instructions - that the machine be based on the existing C purlin machine.
- [15]Mr Sokac appeared on behalf GLK at the hearing. He contends that the agreement with SIDC was one wherein SIDC would only receive payment once the design had been worked out and the Z purlin machine had been fully commissioned. As the only evidence for that contention Mr Sokac pointed to the fact that SIDC was paid at the completion of the (prior) C purlin machine project. Mr Sokac also denied that GLK was aware of the 7 day payment terms expressed in the SIDC invoices at any time prior to 11 March 2015, when this dispute fully came to a head. Mr Sokac also says that Mr Cooper was unresponsive to the repeated requests from GLK that he attend at GLK’s premises to help work through the design problems. Mr Sokac brought one of his employees along to the hearing to testify that Mr Cooper did not come to the GLK premises at Banyo, even when he had promised a visit.
- [16]In response to Mr Sokac, Mr Cooper has produced his GoVia toll charge records to identify the number of times that he travelled from his home at Redlands over the Gateway Bridge so as to attend at the GLK premises, at Banyo. Mr Cooper says that GLK is the only client that SIDC had on the north side of Brisbane at that time. Despite several trips to GLK Mr Cooper says that SIDC never charged for these, and only requires payment for the two invoices that have been rendered.
- [17]At the end of things, it seems clear that the Z purlin machine was to be based on the existing GLK C purlin machine design, and that this has been the root cause for most of the problems and delays in successfully commissioning the new Z purlin machine. Yet, I fail to see why responsibility for that should rest with SIDC, who has done no more than prepare drawings in response to GLK’s specific instruction that the machine be based on the C purlin machine design. I accept Mr Cooper when he says that the SIDC retainer was confined to the preparation of drawings to reflect GLK’s instructions. I further accept the evidence of Mr Cooper when he says that he visited GLK at Banyo on an uncharged basis on several occasions, in an attempt to help GLK with the problems arising during the construction and commissioning of the new machine, yet I also accept that he may not have visited GLK as often as perhaps Mr Sokac may have either wished, or expected. Given that these attendances were entirely unpaid it is hardly surprising that Mr Cooper became more and more reluctant to make the lengthy trip to GLK, particularly in circumstances wherein SIDC’s invoices remained outstanding. I do not accept Mr Sokac when he says that he was “unaware” of the terms of trade requiring payment within 30 days. Nor do I accept that the arrangement was one wherein SIDC would only be paid once the new machine had been commissioned. That SIDC did not press for prompt payment during the prior C purlin project is immaterial. Once the SIDC invoices were delivered to GLK in relation to the Z purlin machine project these should have been paid by GLK, yet they were not.
- [18]I find for the Applicant. The Respondent is now required to pay the Applicant $8,800 plus interest of $1,100 and the QCAT filing fee ($108.70) within 14 days.