Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2021
  4. Interlink Developments Pty Ltd v Kruger - [2021] QCAT 321

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Interlink Developments Pty Ltd v Kruger[2021] QCAT 321

Interlink Developments Pty Ltd v Kruger[2021] QCAT 321

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Interlink Developments Pty Ltd v Kruger [2021] QCAT 321

PARTIES:

interlink developments pty ltd

(applicant)

v

mark kruger and melinda kruger

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL165-18

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 September 2021

HEARING DATE:

14 September 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member McVeigh

ORDERS:

  1. The respondents must pay the applicant $24,149.00 (inclusive of GST) for its claims under the contract.
  2. The respondents must pay the applicant interest on $24,149 from 28 September 2017 at the rate of 15% per annum to the day payment is made.
  3. The applicant must pay the respondents damages of $1,000.
  4. The applicant must pay the respondents interest on the agreed damages of $1,000 at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this decision until and including the day the amount is paid.
  5. Any application for costs must be made by filing in the tribunal two (2) copies and providing one (1) copy to the other party of any submissions and evidence to be relied upon within 14 days of the date of this decision.
  6. If any application for costs is made, then the other party must file in the tribunal two (2) copies and provide one (1) copy to the applying party of any submissions and evidence in response to be relied upon within 28 days of the date of this decision.
  7. The application for costs will be determined on the papers and without an oral hearing.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – GENERALLY – whether a contract should be varied to avoid injustice – whether date for practical completion should be extended

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES – whether agreed rate for liquidated damages a penalty

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77(3)(c), s 77(3)(e), Schedule 1B s 42

Queensland Building and Construction Regulation 2018 (Qld), s 54

Dunlop Pneumatic Trye Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915] AC 79

Grocon Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer (No 2) Pty Ltd [2015] QCA 291, distinguished

Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 224 CLR 656

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

Ms M Campbell of Hearthstone Legal

Respondents:

Mr Schriiffer instructed by McCarthy Durie Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. [1]
    While this dispute has a long history in this tribunal, by the time it came before me for hearing the parties had narrowed the issues considerably. 
  2. [2]
    The dispute relates to a building contract between Interlink Developments Pty Ltd (builder or applicant) and Mark and Melinda Kruger (owner or respondents). 
  3. [3]
    The parties agreed the following facts:
  1. The Applicant, under its former name Urban Homes Pty Ltd, entered into a contract with the male Respondent (Respondent) dated 10th March 2016 (Contract) a copy of which is Attachment A to the Statement of Brian F Maloney dated 10th December 2018 (and filed on or about 11th December 2018).
  1. Under the Contract, the daily rate of liquidated damages is $150.00 per day (refer Item 18 of the Schedule).
  1. The Date of Practical Completion was 13th September 2017.
  1. The Respondent gave to the Applicant a written claim for liquidated damages in the total sum of $37,800.00 on 29th September 2017 (refer Attachment GGGGGG to the Statement of Brian F Maloney dated 10th December 2018 and paragraphs 14 and 18 of the Statement of Brian Maloney dated 5th December 2019).
  1. Subject to item 6 immediately below and any set off for liquidated damages payable by the Applicant to the Respondent under the Contract, the Applicant is entitled to the total sum of $24,149.00 (inclusive of the GST) for its claims for the Practical Completion Stage progress payment and Variation 08-1528 in this proceeding, which sum is calculated as follows:

Progress payment for the Practical Completion Stage

$27,989.00

Less: Variation No. 06-1528 (refer paragraph 9 of the Statement of Brian Maloney dated 5th December 2019)

($4,530.00)

Subtotal

$23,459.00

Plus: Variation 08-1528

$690.00

Total (inclusive of the GST)

$24,149.00

  1. Subject to item 5 immediately above, the Respondent is entitled to the agreed sum of $1,000.00 for the Respondent's claim in the proceeding for damages for breach of contract in respect of defective and incomplete work.
  1. The parties maintain their respective claims for interest and costs.
  1. [4]
    The following matters were disputed:
  1. The Date for Practical Completion under the Contract.
  1. The extent, if any, to which the Date for Practical Completion has been extended.

Issues

  1. [5]
    The parties agreed that the issues to be determined were:
  1. The total amount, if any, of liquidated damages payable by the Applicant to the Respondent under the Contract.
  1. Interest.
  1. Costs.

Evidence

  1. [6]
    Brian Maloney is the director of the builder.  His evidence is contained in:
    1. (a)
      his statement dated 10 December 2018;[1] and
    2. (b)
      his statement dated 5 December 2019.[2]

He was cross-examined on 14 September 2021. 

  1. [7]
    Mark Leslie Kruger is the male respondent.  His evidence is contained in his statement dated 7 November 2019.[3]  He was cross-examined on 14 September 2021. 

What was the Date for Practical Completion?

The contract

  1. [8]
    Clause 8 of the contract is headed commencement and completion.  It provides:

8.1  Date for Commencement

 The Contractor must commence the Works on Site:

  1. if a date is stated in Item 9 of the Schedule as the Date for Commencement, on or before that date; or
  2. if the Date for Commencement is stated in Item 9 of the Schedule to be determined under this Clause 8.1(b), then within 10 business days of the Contractor receiving all of the following:
    1. …
    2. …
    3. the building approval…

8.2  Contractor to give Commencement notice to Owner

…

8.3  Time for Practical Completion

The Contractor must bring the Works to Practical Completion by the Date for Practical Completion.

  1. [9]
    Item 9 of the Schedule makes provision for the parties to:
    1. (a)
      insert a date for commencement, or
    2. (b)
      tick a box if the date is to be determined under clause 8.1(b).
  2. [10]
    When the parties completed the contract, they inserted a date for commencement ‘29/03/2016’ and ticked the box in Item 9.
  3. [11]
    Date for Practical Completion is defined to mean:

The date stated in, or otherwise determined in accordance with, Item 10 of the Schedule, by which the Works are to be brought to Practical Completion, as adjusted under this contract. 

  1. [12]
    Item 10 of the Schedule makes provision for the parties to:
    1. (a)
      insert a date, or
    2. (b)
      tick a box to indicate that the date is to be the last day of the construction period (see item 8) from the Date for Commencement.
  2. [13]
    When the parties completed the contract, they inserted a Date for Practical Completion ‘29/11/16’ but did not tick the box in Item 10.
  3. [14]
    Item 8 of the Schedule makes provision for the parties to specify an allowed construction period, an allowance for delay for inclement weather and an allowance for non-working days. 
  4. [15]
    When the parties completed the contract, they inserted an allowance of 240 days for the construction period in Item 8.
  5. [16]
    Until the hearing, the owner maintained the argument that the builder was obliged to bring the work to practical completion by 29 November 2016; i.e., that the builder had no entitlement to any extension of time under the contract.  That view was plainly wrong as it ignores the phrase ‘as adjusted under this contract’ in the definition of Date for Practical Completion.  Counsel for the owner properly conceded that whether a date was specified or whether a period was specified the Date for Practical Completion could be adjusted provided the provisions of the contract were followed. 
  6. [17]
    Clause 15 of the contract deals with delays and extensions of time.  If progress is delayed by any of the listed causes, the builder has an obligation to give the owner written notice of the cause and extent of the delay within 10 business days of becoming aware of the cause and extent of the delay.  The owner is obliged to give the builder notice of either acceptance or rejection of the claim within 10 business days.  If the owner rejects the claim or fails to give that notice, the dispute falls to be resolved under clause 28 of the contract.  Clause 28 provides that this tribunal is a forum in which the dispute might be resolved. 
  7. [18]
    The builder has always maintained that the Date for Practical Completion was the date 240 days after the Date of Commencement determined under clause 8.1(b), adjusted in accordance with the contract.

Section 77(3)(e) Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act

  1. [19]
    This tribunal is empowered to vary a contract to avoid injustice by section 77(3)(e) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act).
  2. [20]
    The builder submits that it would be unjust if the Date for Practical Completion were not determined under clause 8.1(b) and therefore that the contract should be varied by inserting a tick in the box in Item 10 of the Schedule. 
  3. [21]
    The owner submits that justice does not require the contract to be varied as it is unambiguous.  The manner in which the parties completed Item 9 of the Schedule was ambiguous.  It could not be the case that the Date for Commencement was both 29 March 2016, i.e., the date stated in Item 9, and to be determined in accordance with clause 8.1(b). 
  4. [22]
    As matters unfolded it was not legally possible for work to commence on 29 March 2016.  It was common ground that although both parties expected the work to commence shortly after the contract was signed in March 2016, work could not commence until after the building approval was issued and that could not happen until the plan of the subdivision was sealed and the title was registered.  Due to delays caused by the council, the plan of the subdivision was not sealed for months, with the consequence that work could not commence until October 2016. 
  5. [23]
    As work could not commence until October 2016 it would be unjust to expect the builder to build the house by 29 November 2016.  I find that the contract should be varied by inserting a tick in the box in Item 10 of the Schedule.  Therefore, the Date for Practical Completion is to be determined under clause 8.1(b).
  6. [24]
    In September 2016 the parties negotiated an increase in the contract price due to delay in release of the title (variation 1).  The owner, although initially reluctant, on 7 October 2016, agreed to a $10,000 price increase on the basis that the builder would actually incur those costs due to the delay in commencement and acknowledged that no additional time would be needed.[4]
  7. [25]
    In a letter dated 20 October 2016 the builder advised the owner that the Date for Commencement was 13 October 2016 and that in accordance with the contract the official completion date would be 10 June 2017.[5]  Mr Kruger denied receiving the letter.  Even if that were the case, it is clear from the fact that Mr Kruger signed variation 1 on 7 October 2016 that he knew the work would start in October 2016 and that the builder was committed to the original 240 day construction period. 
  8. [26]
    I find that the original Date for Practical Completion was 10 June 2017.

What is the extended Date for Practical Completion?

Variations which required additional time

  1. [27]
    Variations are one of the causes of delay entitling the builder to claim an extension of time under clause 15.1 of the contract.
  2. [28]
    While the owner’s original submission was that the builder was not entitled to any extensions of time because they had not been agreed in writing, it was conceded that the owner had agreed in writing to the following variations which included an acknowledgement that additional time would be needed:
    1. (a)
      Variation 3 – 10 working days;
    2. (b)
      Variation 4 – 10 working days;
    3. (c)
      Variation 7 – 3 working days;
    4. (d)
      Variation 8 – 3 working days.
  3. [29]
    It was common ground that 26 working days is equivalent to 34 calendar days.  12 July 2017 is 34 calendar days after 10 June 2017.  Hence, I find that the extended Date for Practical Completion was 12 July 2017. 

Claims for extensions of time

  1. [30]
    The builder gave the owner four claims for extensions of time under clause 15.1 of the contract:
    1. (a)
      21 days for the Christmas industry shutdown;
    2. (b)
      7 days for wet weather;
    3. (c)
      7 days for delay in tile selection; and
    4. (d)
      4 days for owner’s delay in agreeing to a variation for additional costs for laying non-standard tiles. 
  2. [31]
    The owner did not provide a written response to the first two claims and rejected the last two claims. 
  3. [32]
    I reject the submission of counsel for the owner that none of the claims should be considered as they were all made outside the 10 business day period prescribed by clause 15.1 of the contract on the bases:
    1. (a)
      that compliance with the 10 day notice period is not a condition precedent to entitlement;
    2. (b)
      in any case, as the time for giving the claim does not commence to run until after progress has been delayed, the delay cannot be quantified until after it has run its course; and
    3. (c)
      that disputes about entitlement to extensions of time fall to be resolved in this tribunal pursuant to clause 15.5 of the contract.
  4. [33]
    I also reject the submission of counsel for the owner that section 42 of Schedule 1B of the QBCC Act prohibits the builder from relying on the claims for extensions of time as the claims were not accepted in writing.  Section 42 prescribes a regime of civil penalties that may be imposed on builders which fail to comply with the legislation.  This proceeding is not one in which a civil penalty is being, or could be, sought.  The issue before me is interpretation of the contract. 

Christmas shutdown

  1. [34]
    I note that in cross-examination Mr Kruger accepted that it was reasonable that there be a Christmas shutdown. 
  2. [35]
    Christmas Shutdown is defined in the contract as:

… the general shutdown within the building and construction industry throughout the following periods:

22 December to 31 December; and

1 January to 10 January.

  1. [36]
    The Christmas Shutdown is one of the causes of delay entitling the builder to claim an extension of time under clause 15.1 of the contract. 
  2. [37]
    I find that the Date for Practical Completion should be extended by 20 calendar days for the Christmas Shutdown, from 12 July 2017 to 1 August 2017. 

Wet weather

  1. [38]
    Inclement weather, or any conditions arising out of inclement weather is a cause of delay entitling the builder to claim an extension of time under clause 15.1 of the contract.  When the owner received the builder’s claim for extension of time for delay in bricklaying due to wet weather on 7 April 2017, the only query was in respect of the number of days, not the fact the delay had occurred.  The builder confirmed the claim was for 7 days.[6] 
  2. [39]
    Records from the Bureau of Meteorology show that rain fell every day in the period 18 to 25 March and totals over 60mm fell on each of 30 and 31 March 2017.[7]
  3. [40]
    It is not surprising that progress of the work was delayed by such rain and conditions arising from that rain.  I find that the Date for Practical Completion should be extended by a further 7 calendar days for inclement weather, from 1 August 2017 to 8 August 2017. 

Tile selection

  1. [41]
    The builder claimed that progress of the work was delayed by 7 days due to the owner’s delay in finalising tile selection.[8]  The owner rejected the claim.
  2. [42]
    The builder ordered the tiles to be delivered to site on 9 June 2017.[9]  As access to the site was not easy, Mr Maloney knew that the tiles could not be unloaded by forklift.  They had to be unloaded by hand. 
  3. [43]
    On the basis of the documentary evidence, I find that while Mr Kruger had selected tiles in March 2016, despite being reminded on 31 May 2017, he did not return the signed selection form until 6 June 2017.  It was then discovered that the selected tiles were not available.  On 7 June 2017 Mr Kruger selected tiles that were available.[10] 
  4. [44]
    The tiles were delivered on 16 June 2017.[11] 
  5. [45]
    The owner blames the delay on the builder’s lack of communication and poor management of suppliers.  Had Mr Kruger signed and returned the selection form in the year that elapsed after making the selection, or even had he acted promptly on receiving the reminder on 31 May instead of waiting 6 days to return his selection form, perhaps the delivery could have been made as planned on 9 June 2017.  We will never know.  However, in the circumstances I find that progress of the work was delayed by acts or omissions of the owner, i.e. by failing to return the signed selection form until 6 June 2017. 
  6. [46]
    I find that the Date for Practical Completion should be extended by a further 7 calendar days for the owner’s delay in finalising tile selection, from 8 August 2017 to 15 August 2017. 

Delay in agreeing variation to lay non-standard tiles

  1. [47]
    The builder claimed that progress of the work was delayed by 4 days due to the owner’s delay in agreeing to a variation for additional costs for laying non-standard tiles.[12]  The claim is not in respect of the extra time to lay non-standard tiles as that claim was accepted as variation 7, but in respect of the tiler’s refusal to start until the owner agreed to pay for the extra labour. 
  2. [48]
    The builder is responsible for managing its subcontractors.  A subcontractor’s refusal to start work is not one of the causes of delay for which a claim might be made under clause 15.1 of the contract. 
  3. [49]
    I find that the builder is not entitled to any extension of time due to the owner’s delay in agreeing to a variation for additional costs for laying non-standard tiles. 

Liquidated damages

Entitlement to claim under the contract

  1. [50]
    Clause 18 of the contract gives the owner an entitlement to claim liquidated damages if the builder fails to bring the works to practical completion by the Date for Practical Completion, for each day after the Date for Practical Completion until the Date of Practical Completion. 
  2. [51]
    On the facts as I have found them and as agreed, the owner had an entitlement to claim liquidated damages from 15 August 2017 to 13 September 2017.  Whether the owner has an entitlement to recover liquidated damages at the rate specified in the contract is another question.

Are the liquidated damages a penalty?

  1. [52]
    The High Court in Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Pty Ltd[13] accepted that Lord Dunedin’s speech in Dunlop Pneumatic Trye Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd (Dunlop)[14] sets out ‘the principles governing the identification, proof and consequences of penalties in contractual stipulations’ and that the ‘decision in Dunlop continues to express the law applicable in this country’.[15]
  2. [53]
    The relevant part of Lord Dunedin’s speech reads (omitting citations):
  1. The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as interrorem of the offending party; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage…
  1. The question whether a sum stipulated is penalty or liquidated damages is a question of construction to be decided upon the terms and inherent circumstances of each particular contract, judged of as at the time of the making of the contract, not as at the time of the breach…
  1. To assist this task of construction various tests have been suggested, which if applicable to the case under consideration may prove helpful, or even conclusive. Such are:
  1. (a)
    It will be held to be penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach…
  1. (b)
    It will be held to be a penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid…
  1. (c)
    There is a presumption (but no more) that it is penalty when “a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage”.[16]
  1. [54]
    Although the High Court has examined cases regarding penalties since 2005, those cases were in the context of liquidated damages sought to be imposed in financial transactions between banks and their customers.  As the question of whether a sum stipulated is a penalty or liquidated damages is a question of construction to be decided upon the terms and inherent circumstances of each particular contract they are not of assistance in this case.
  2. [55]
    The Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether the penalty doctrine applied in a building case in Grocon Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer (No 2) Pty Ltd.[17]  The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the primary judge finding the liquidated damages clause to be valid.  It should be noted that the critical issue in the appeal was whether the definition of ‘Practical Completion’ set out in the contract had the effect of attracting the operation of proposition 4(c) articulated by Lord Dunedin in Dunlop.[18]  The contract in question was a sophisticated commercial contract with a complex regime for ascertaining when the work was practically complete, unlike the relatively simple residential contract before me.  In this case there was no issue regarding the definition of practical completion and hence no issue regarding the operation of proposition 4(c) articulated by Lord Dunedin in Dunlop. 
  3. [56]
    It should also be noted that Grocon, the builder, conceded that the amounts payable under the liquidated damages clause were not out of all proportion to the potential losses to Juniper, the owner, which the court found went a long way toward satisfying the test that the stipulated sum was not extravagant or unconscionable in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved.[19]  Grocon expressly agreed that the liquidated damages were a genuine pre-estimate of Juniper’s damages.[20]  That is not the case before me.
  4. [57]
    The starting point in assessing whether the liquidated damages are a penalty is to construe the contract at the time it was made.  If the rate of $150 per day was extravagant or unconscionable in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach it will be a penalty. 
  5. [58]
    The builder denies that the damages were a genuine pre-estimate of the owner’s loss.  It was common ground that the owner’s loss would be loss of rent as the house was being built to rent. The rate of $150 per day is the equivalent of $1050 per week. 
  6. [59]
    Mr Maloney’s evidence was that he had inserted a rate of $70 per day in the draft based on his research of rentals for three-bedroom homes in Coorparoo on realestate.com.au which ranged from the low $300s per week to the low $500s per week.[21]  However, he agreed to increase the rate to $150 per day after negotiations with Mr Kruger.  Mr Maloney stated that Mr Kruger said ‘I can use it as a stick if needed to make sure my home gets priority over other homes’.[22] 
  7. [60]
    Mr Kruger did not deny making that statement in his statutory declaration, however denied it during cross-examination.  He disagreed that he had used those words, but said that he recalled the discussion about liquidated damages in the context of the builder’s delay costs being fixed at $200 per day.  His recollection was that he said that it was only fair that their liquidated damages would be in the same amount. 
  8. [61]
    It does not matter whether or not Mr Kruger threatened to use the liquidated damages as a stick.  Ultimately it is a matter for this tribunal to decide if the rate was a penalty.  However, I accept that the rate was increased from $70 per day in the draft to $150 per day following a discussion about the builder’s delay costs.  No doubt Mr Kruger thought it right that he be compensated in the same amount as the builder for delays.  However, he failed to appreciate that the builder’s losses in the event of delay would be quite different to the owner’s loss.
  9. [62]
    I find that a genuine pre-estimate of the owner’s loss in March 2016 was the likely rental for a new three-bedroom home in Coorparoo.  The owner did not challenge Mr Maloney’s research about such rentals.  I cannot believe that the owner genuinely expected to receive rent of $1050 per week when the house was completed, particularly as in 2018 the house rented for $675 per week.[23] 
  10. [63]
    I find that not only is the rate of $150 per day disproportionate to the loss actually suffered, it is extravagant in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have flowed from the breach. 
  11. [64]
    I find the rate of liquidated damages at $150 per day is a penalty.

Interest

Relevant legislation

  1. [65]
    Section 77(3)(c) of the QBCC Act gives the tribunal power to:

award damages, and interest on the damages at the rate, and calculated in the way, prescribed under a regulation.

  1. [66]
    Section 54 of the Queensland Building and Construction Regulation 2018 (Qld) (QBCC Regulation) provides:

Interest—Act, s 77

  1. (1)
    For section 77(3)(c) of the Act, interest is payable on the amount of damages awarded—
  1. (a)
    if the parties have entered into a contract—at the rate provided under the contract; or
  1. (b)
    at the rate agreed between the parties; or
  1. (c)
    otherwise—at the rate of 10%.
  1. (2)
    The interest is payable on and from the day after the day the amount became payable until and including the day the amount is paid.

The contract

  1. [67]
    Clause 11.9 of the contract gives the builder an entitlement to interest on outstanding amounts at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after payment was due to the day of payment.  The owner does not have a contractual entitlement to interest.

Builder’s entitlement to interest

  1. [68]
    Pursuant to section 54(1)(a) of the QBCC Regulation, the builder is entitled to interest on the agreed total of $24,149 from 28 September 2017 (agreed as the due date for payment of the final claim) at the rate of 15% per annum to the day payment is made. 

Owner’s entitlement to interest

  1. [69]
    Pursuant to section 54(1)(c) of the QBCC Regulation, the owner is entitled to interest on the agreed amount of $1,000 as damages at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this decision until and including the day the amount is paid. 

Costs

  1. [70]
    Section 100 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) provides that, subject to an enabling Act, each party must bear its own costs of the proceedings.  The QBCC Act is the relevant enabling Act for these proceedings.  Section 77(h) of the QBCC Act confers specific jurisdiction on this tribunal to award costs in building disputes. 
  2. [71]
    Subject to any further submissions that might be made regarding offers of settlement, if any, my intention is to follow the usual rule and order the unsuccessful owner to pay the costs of the successful builder.
  3. [72]
    I reserve my decision on costs to enable the parties to provide written submissions regarding the circumstances that I should take into account when making an order as to costs.

Orders

  1. The respondents must pay the applicant $24,149.00 (inclusive of GST) for its claims under the contract.
  1. The respondents must pay the applicant interest on $24,149 from 28 September 2017 at the rate of 15% per annum to the day payment is made.
  2. The applicant must pay the respondents damages of $1,000.
  3. The applicant must pay the respondents interest on the agreed damages of $1,000 at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this decision until and including the day the amount is paid.
  4. Any application for costs must be made by filing in the tribunal two (2) copies and providing one (1) copy to the other party of any submissions and evidence to be relied upon within 14 days of the date of this decision.
  5. If any application for costs is made, then the other party must file in the tribunal two (2) copies and provide one (1) copy to the applying party of any submissions and evidence in response to be relied upon within 28 days of the date of this decision.
  6. The application for costs will be determined on the papers and without an oral hearing.

Footnotes

[1]Exhibit 1.

[2]Exhibit 2.

[3]Exhibit 3.

[4]Exhibit 1, attachment VVV.

[5]Exhibit 1, attachment CCCC.

[6]Exhibit 1, attachment CCCCC.

[7]Exhibit 3, MLK 02, attachment MK-02.

[8]Exhibit 1, attachment HHHHH.

[9]Exhibit 1, [254].

[10]Exhibit 3, MLK 02, attachment MK-03.

[11]Exhibit 1, [264].

[12]Exhibit 1, attachment IIIII.

[13](2005) 224 CLR 656.

[14][1915] AC 79.

[15]at [12].

[16][1915] AC 79 at 86 – 87.

[17][2015] QCA 291.

[18]At [4].

[19]At [96].

[20]At [133].

[21]Exhibit 1, [48].

[22]Exhibit 1, [51].

[23]Exhibit 3, MLK 06.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Interlink Developments Pty Ltd v Kruger

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Interlink Developments Pty Ltd v Kruger

  • MNC:

    [2021] QCAT 321

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member McVeigh

  • Date:

    21 Sep 2021

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd (1915) AC 79
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1915) AC 79
Cite 2 - (1915) AC 79
Cite 3 - (1915) AC 79
Grocon Constructors (Qld) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No 2 Pty Ltd [2015] QCA 291
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCA 291
Cite 2 - [2015] QCA 291
Ringrow v BP (Aust) (2005) 224 CLR 656
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2005) 224 CLR 656
Cite 2 - (2005) 224 CLR 656

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.