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

Saunders v Roberts[2016] QCATA 145

CITATION:

Saunders v Roberts [2016] QCATA 145

PARTIES:

Kevin Gordon Saunders and Tremayne Greta Saunders

(Appellants)

v

David Roberts

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL023-16

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

Member Howe

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. Leave to appeal granted.
  2. Appeal allowed.
  3. David Roberts shall rectify or arrange to have rectified at the builder’s expense within 28 days of the date of order such plumbing, pipes or tapware at the subject property necessary so as to obtain and provide to the owners a certificate of final plumbing approval from the Rockhampton Regional Council within a further 28 days.
  4. The parties may make written submissions within 14 days of the date of decision on the question of costs of these appeal proceedings and the hearing below and that costs be determined on the papers.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – CONTRACTS – BUILDING ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – Practical completion under the contract and by statute – no final plumbing approval – plumbing approval as a requirement of practical completion – compliance assessment – Plumbing Code of Australia – specific performance – statutory equivalent remedy to specific performance – equitable considerations

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 142(3)(b)

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 77

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld) s 67(2), (3) and (6)

Plumbing And Drainage Act 2002 (Qld) s 80, 82(1), 116, 118

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld)  s 232(1)(b), 594

Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) s 142(4)

Standard Plumbing And Drainage Regulation 2003 (Qld), s 8A(1)

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2003 (Qld) s 11 Schedule 1AA

Underwood v Qld Department of Communities [2012] QCA 158

Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Bawden [2002] QCA 286

Klooster  v Sticky Fingers (Qld) Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 282

Radcliff & Anor v Walker [2011] QCAT 435

Hewett v Court [1983] HCA 7

Andreas Angelatos and Ors v National Australia Bank [1994] FCA 1223

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member Stilgoe OAM

  1. [1]
    In this appeal, the Appeal Tribunal comprised Member Howe and me. I have had the benefit of reading Member Howes’ reasons in draft. I agree with his reasons, his conclusions and the order he proposes.

Member Howe

  1. [2]
    The appellants seek leave to appeal that part of the decision of the Tribunal made 21 December 2015 dismissing their claim as owners against a builder for an order that the builder replace, rectify or repair the necessary plumbing, pipes or tapware in their home so as to obtain final plumbing approval from The Rockhampton Regional Council (the Council).

Background

  1. [3]
    Mr and Mrs Saunders as owners and Mr Roberts as a builder entered into a Master Builders building contract in February 2010 for the construction of a brick veneer dwelling in Rockhampton.  By March 2011, the home was nearly finished.  On about 14 March 2011 a final plumbing inspection was arranged but the Council inspector found a water hammer problem in the plumbing.  Despite that, the owners took possession of the house on about 28 March 2011 without final plumbing approval in place.  A second plumbing inspection was arranged for 1 April 2011.  The inspector again refused to issue a final plumbing approval because of the persisting problem of water hammer.
  2. [4]
    Final plumbing approval has never been given.  The Council wrote to the owners and copied the letter to the builder and the subcontracting plumber (described in the correspondence as the responsible person) who did the work on behalf of the builder on 3 July 2013 informing all concerned that a final plumbing inspection was still outstanding.  The letter advised that since a certificate had not been issued for completion of the work, the absence of final approval was going to be noted as a requisition against the property.  The owners (or builder or job plumber) were asked to contact the plumbing section of Council to arrange a final inspection.
  3. [5]
    The owners asked the builder to fix the water hammer and get them final plumbing approval.  The builder tried a number of things but the water hammer continued to be a problem.  The source of the problem remained a mystery to all, including a number of plumbers brought in by the builder to look for a solution.  In the absence of solution, the owners eventually brought proceedings in the Tribunal for an order that the builder be directed to fix the problem.  The matter was heard in Rockhampton on 21 December 2015.
  4. [6]
    The learned Member hearing the application accepted the evidence of an experienced plumber, Mr Hill, who suggested the pipework in the house was unlikely to be the cause of the water hammer.  He thought it was more likely to be associated with the tapware or tapware components.  The Member found there was no evidence that the builder was responsible for any failure with tapware.  The Member said none of the experts called was able to point to faulty workmanship on the part of the builder.  Additionally, since completion of the property, there had been the intervening factor of the replacement of the hot water system.  The Member accepted the builder had discharged his obligations under the building contract to carry out the works in an appropriate and skilful way and with reasonable care.  The owners had failed to establish the cause of the water hammer, failed to establish the builder’s responsibility for its presence and failed to satisfy the Member that the builder had failed to meet his contractual obligations.  On that basis, that part of the claim concerning plumbing approval was dismissed.  An order by consent was made with respect to other items in dispute between the parties.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

  1. [7]
    The owners’ grounds of appeal involve questions of mixed law and fact.  A party may appeal to the Appeal Tribunal on a question of law without leave, but appeals on questions of fact or mixed law and fact require leave be granted before an appeal will be heard.[1] 
  2. [8]
    Generally there should be sufficient doubt raised as to the correctness of the decision under appeal as to justify the grant of leave.  Suspected or discernible error on the part of the primary decision maker must be shown.  If a reasonable argument exists that there is an error to be corrected and an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice to the appellant, then leave will usually be granted.[2]   Sometimes there may be additional factors requiring consideration according to the circumstances of the case, such as the importance of the issue proposed to be raised on appeal in circumstances where there is no substantial injustice to the appellant involved.[3]
  3. [9]
    The grounds of appeal are as follows:

Ground 1: The learned Member made a mistake of fact and/or law in finding that Mr Saunders had not established the cause of the water hammer that he and his wife contended was a fault that the builder was obligated to rectify. 

Ground 2: The learned Tribunal Member made a mistake of fact and/or law in finding that the problem is more likely to be with the tapware or its components.

Ground 3: The learned Member made a mistake of fact and/or law in finding that there was no evidence that the builder was responsible for any failure of the tapware.

Ground 4: The learned Member made a mistake of fact and/or law that Mr Roberts had discharged his obligations under the building contract.

Ground 5: The learned Member made a mistake of fact and/or law that the builder had satisfied his contractual obligations.

  1. [10]
    Grounds 1, 4 and 5 may be conveniently dealt with together, and ground 2 with ground 3.  It is appropriate to deal with the latter first.

Grounds 2 and 3

Ground 2: The learned Tribunal Member made a mistake of fact and/or law in finding that the problem is more likely to be with the tapware or its components.

Ground 3: The learned Member made a mistake of fact and/or law in finding that there was no evidence that the builder was responsible for any failure of the tapware.

  1. [11]
    In my opinion, the learned Member was well entitled to draw the conclusions that the problem of water hammer was more likely than not to be associated with tapware or its components rather than piping, and that there was no evidence that the builder was responsible for any failure of the tapware.
  2. [12]
    Evidence was taken from a number of plumbers.  The owners’ plumber conceded the builder’s plumber expert, Mr Hill, was very experienced and he deferred to Mr Hill’s diagnostic expertise.  Mr Hill’s conclusion was that the pipework was probably not the problem but rather something to do with the tapware or component parts of tapware.  Mr Hill made it clear that to fix the problem one should start replacing the cartridges inside the taps and if that did not work, replace the tapware, and if that didn’t resolve the issue then the flick mixers and then after that, if the water hammer problem still remained, start replacing pipework.
  3. [13]
    The learned Member accepted Mr Hill’s evidence.  I conclude the learned Member was entitled to do that.  Similarly, in my opinion, the learned Member was entitled to conclude that there was no evidence that the builder was responsible for any failure in the tapware utilised.
  4. [14]
    In my opinion, grounds 2 and 3 cannot succeed and leave to appeal should not be granted on those grounds.

Grounds 1, 4 and 5

Ground 1: The learned Member made a mistake of fact and/or law in finding that Mr Saunders had not established the cause of the water hammer that he and his wife contended was a fault that the builder was obligated to rectify. 

Ground 4: The learned Member made a mistake of fact and/or law that Mr Roberts had discharged his obligations under the building contract.

Ground 5: The learned Member made a mistake of fact and/or law that the builder had satisfied his contractual obligations.

  1. [15]
    There was evidence at the hearing that if left unchecked, water hammer may cause damage to other plumbing fixtures in a home. Whilst the water hammer problem was identified by the Council inspector as occurring in bath mixers in his inspection in April 2011, when the job plumber Mr Daley was contacted by the owners in September 2014 the water hammer problem seemed to have moved to the spa bath.  He returned sometime in early January 2015 to find water hammer noise in a number of places throughout the house, not simply confined to the bath tapware.
  2. [16]
    Significant time at hearing was spent on the issue of water hammer, its mysterious causes and the vague uncertainties of correction.  The learned Member spent some time in her decision clearly setting out the work done by the builder and his agents trying to discover the cause of the water hammer problem and also their work done trying to fix the problem, though to no avail.  The Member’s conclusion was that the builder had discharged his obligations under the building contract on the basis that there was no evidence he had not brought appropriate skill and reasonable care to his work in performing the plumbing work under the contract.  The Member held the onus was on the owners to do that and they had failed in that regard. 
  3. [17]
    At hearing, the owners’ solicitor submitted that without final plumbing approval the owners would suffer real financial loss if they tried to sell the home in the future.  The submission was that by clause 10 of the general conditions of contract the contractor warranted that he would not only carry out the works in an appropriate and skilful way, with reasonable care and skill, in accordance with the plans and specifications, but also in accordance with all relevant laws and legal requirements, including for example the Building Act 1975.  It was argued there had been a failure on the part of the builder to comply with that obligation in failing to obtain a final pass from the Council in respect of plumbing.  Mr Grant, for the owners, submitted there was an obligation on the plumber engaged by the builder to rectify the problem at his cost.  He had to do that by such work as was necessary to ensure the work complied with the requirements of Council.
  4. [18]
    It was also submitted that there was an obligation on the builder and the job plumber to carry out the rectification work despite any alleged delay on the part of the owners after the second plumbing fail from Council. 
  5. [19]
    The learned Member did not address these latter issues in her reasons for decision.

Statutory requirements

  1. [20]
    The provisions of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld) (DBC) applied to the contract between the parties entered into in 2011.  By s 67(2) and (3) of the DBC, a building contractor under a regulated contract must not demand or receive all or part of the completion payment under the contract unless practical completion stage had been reached.  By s 67(6) of the DBC practical completion stage meant, amongst other things, that the subject work had been completed in accordance with the contract, apart from minor omissions or minor defects, and in accordance with all relevant statutory requirements.
  2. [21]
    In Radcliff & Anor v Walker[4] the learned Member Favell determined the owners there had taken possession of the property in circumstances where practical completion had not occurred because of a number of matters outstanding under the contract.  One issue was the failure to provide a final plumbing certificate.  The learned Member said “… in my view the evidence establishes that the works were not completed in accordance with the contract and all statutory requirements.  Part of non-compliance was the lack of a final plumbing inspection and certificate.”[5]
  3. [22]
    By item 14 of the schedule to the contract, the builder was responsible for obtaining building approval.  Given the contract between the parties was construction of a new home the builder also had to apply for plumbing approval, that work however being compliance assessable work.
  4. [23]
    Compliance assessable work requires compliance assessment.[6]  By s 80 of the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002 (Qld) (PDA) the purpose of compliance assessment is to allow for compliance assessable work to be assessed for compliance with the Standard Plumbing And Drainage Regulation 2003 (Qld) (the Regulation) and a compliance certificate to be issued for the work. The assessment manager for compliance assessment was the Council, as opposed to a building certifier.
  5. [24]
    Section 82(1) of the PDA provides a person who carries out any plumbing or drainage work must ensure the work complies with the Regulation.  By s 8A(1) of the Regulation plumbing work and drainage work must comply with the Plumbing Code of Australia.  The Plumbing Code of Australia comprises Volume 3 of the National Construction Code.  Volumes 1 and 2 comprise the Building Code of Australia.
  6. [25]
    The relevant provisions of the Plumbing Code of Australia applicable in 2011 required, in respect of cold water service installations, the provision of water to fixtures and appliances in a manner which does not create undue noise.[7]  There was a similar requirement with respect to heated water service installation (dealing with the reticulation system and hardware items rather than addressing the hot water unit itself).[8] 
  7. [26]
    Pursuant to the requirements of compliance assessment, the Council inspected the premises for the purpose of giving final plumbing approval on two occasions, the last being 1 April 2011.  Both inspections failed because of water hammer.  The Council advised the owners, the builder and the job plumber that the plumbing work failed assessment.  By its letter dated 3 July 2013, more than 2 years later, the Council advised the parties that the plumbing and drainage work carried out at the premises was incomplete insofar as it was a condition of the original approval that a final inspection (final approval) be carried out on completion of the work. 
  8. [27]
    By s 116 of the PDA the local government may give notice[9] (enforcement notice) to either the owner of the premises or the person who performed plumbing or drainage work to alter, repair, replace or remove plumbing or drainage work to bring the work up to regulatory standards.  Section 118 of the PDA provides that an enforcement notice under the PDA is taken to be an enforcement notice given under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA).  Failure to comply with an enforcement notice under the SPA exposes the person given the enforcement notice to a potential maximum penalty of 1665 penalty units,[10] each penalty unit currently valued at $110. 
  9. [28]
    Further, by s 142(4) Local Government Act 2009 the local government may enter premises and recover the costs of making good work directed to be done under an enforcement notice as a debt payable by the person who failed to take the directed action.  One would think it would be unusual for a local government to take such draconian action over water hammer, however what the penalty regime makes clear is that failure to provide a final plumbing certificate is no trivial or insignificant matter.  It exposes owner, builder and the person who did the work, at least potentially, to significant penalties.
  10. [29]
    The builder’s failure to provide final plumbing certification means the work under the contract was not completed in accordance with the terms of the contract and statutory requirements.  Failure to obtain final plumbing approval (certification) is no minor omission or minor defect able to be rectified after practical completion was reached.  It was a statutory requirement imposed by s 67(3) DBC Act as a necessarily precursor to achieving practical completion.  Without practical completion being achieved, the builder has not fulfilled his obligations under the contract. 
  11. [30]
    It seems reasonably clear therefore that the learned Member below erred in law in concluding that the builder had discharged his obligations under the contract simply because the owners could not prove faulty workmanship on his part.
  12. [31]
    It is in the interests of justice that leave to appeal be granted.  There is an error to be corrected and an appeal is necessary to correct a potential substantial injustice to the owners not only given the possibility of a statutory penalty but also what may be a significant financial loss if they attempt to sell the property without final plumbing approval.

The Appeal

  1. [32]
    As the appeal raises issues of mixed law and fact, the appeal must be decided by way of rehearing.   Appeals by way of rehearing means there is a fresh decision made concerning the issues between the parties, not a correction of the decision made by the Tribunal below.  The Appeal Tribunal determines the legal rights and obligations of the parties as at the date of rehearing.  The Appeal Tribunal is free to consider new circumstances and admit further evidence.  It reviews the evidence before the primary decision maker and reaches its own conclusion.
  2. [33]
    Having said that, it is unnecessary to repeat the observations made above concerning the statutory requirements.  It is not disputed that the builder failed to obtain final plumbing approval.  That approval was a relevant statutory requirement and precursor to practical completion under the contract.  The builder has failed to achieve practical completion in accordance with the requirements of the contract between the parties.  Without practical completion stage being achieved the builder has failed to discharge his obligations under the contract. 
  3. [34]
    Are there obviating factors relieving the builder from his obligation to obtain final plumbing approval?

Hot Water System

  1. [35]
    Reference was made at the hearing to a replacement hot water system put in by the owners.  However the water hammer problem was diagnosed before the owners took possession.  A solar hot water system was only added after the owners moved in. 

Early Occupation

  1. [36]
    The owners entered into early occupation of the property, but only with the agreement of the builder.  There was an initial final plumbing inspection at the property on 14 March 2011, which failed because of water hammer.  The owners took possession of the home on about 28 March 2011.  The second plumbing inspection occurred on 1 April 2011, which also failed.
  2. [37]
    Possession was taken between the first and second plumbing inspections.  On the limited evidence available, neither owners nor builder acted otherwise than on a basis that the contractual obligations of the builder remained on foot post occupation.
  3. [38]
    It was put to Mr Saunders at hearing that, after the owners took possession the owners were the ones who controlled access, however it was not put to him and does not appear to have been the case, that access was ever denied the builder after the owners occupied the dwelling.
  4. [39]
    The evidence of the builder was that from after the time of the second plumbing inspection the builder was waiting for the owners to contact him about the purchase of replacement tapware components.  According to the builder, it was only because there was no further contact made in that regard, that he did not return to the job.

Owners Purchase of Tapware

  1. [40]
    Under the contract there was a prime cost component for tapware of $1900.  The owners were referred by the builder to the latter’s preferred supplier to choose tapware.  The builder agreed at hearing it was normal for owners to select their own tapware.  The builder said he would send them off to make the selection and the order would be placed on his account so that the fittings were available when he telephoned to have them delivered.  That occurred here with the only difference to the standard scenario being the owners paid for the items in advance when at the suppliers.[11]  As such, the responsibility for supply of tapware under the contact remained with the builder.
  2. [41]
    I conclude there are no obviating factors relieving the builder from his outstanding obligation to obtain final plumbing approval under the contract.

Relief Sought

  1. [42]
    The owners seek an order that the builder replace, rectify or repair the necessary plumbing, pipes or tapware required to obtain final plumbing approval from the Council.
  2. [43]
    By s 77 of the QBCC Act the Tribunal may make a number of orders, including an order directing rectification or completion of defective or incomplete work in deciding a building dispute.  The matter here is a building dispute within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.[12]  Is the relief sought appropriate in the circumstances? 
  3. [44]
    In the present circumstances, the order sought is akin to seeking specific performance of the contract between the parties under the general law.   There is authority for the proposition that specific performance will not be granted to enforce construction contracts.[13] 

The contract between the appellants and the company was not of a type which equity would specifically enforce. It was a contract for the construction of a house and its erection. As Mellish L.J. remarked in Wilkinson v. Clements (1872) 8 Ch App 96, at p 112 : "Now it is settled that, as a general rule, the Court will not compel the building of houses." There are exceptions to that rule where the work to be done is sufficiently defined, damages are an inadequate remedy, and the builder has obtained possession of the site pursuant to a contract. See Fry on Specific Performance, 6th ed. (1921), p. 48; Wolverhampton Corporation v. Emmons (1901) 1 KB 515 ; York House Pty. Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1930] HCA 7; (1930) 43 CLR 427, at pp 437, 439 .”

  1. [45]
    Specific performance is an equitable remedy.  The remedy sought here however is statutory, pursuant to the provisions of the QBCC Act.  Similar remedial powers of relief were available under the former Trade Practices Act 1974.  In Andreas Angelatos and Ors v National Australia Bank[14] the Federal Court discussed a submission that as a matter of law and pursuant to authority, the statutory remedy was not available in circumstances where the general rule in equity would apply which denied specific performance of a contract to lend money.  Branson J said “In my view it is … plain that the rule is not immutable where what is sought to be invoked is not equitable relief but the wide statutory powers of the court under section 87 of the Trade Practices Act. (See Creative's Landscape Design Centre Pty. Ltd. v Platz (1989) ATPR 40-980; Benlist Pty Ltd v Olivetti Australia Pty. Ltd. (1990) ATPR 41-043)…. In my view the rule that ordinarily specific performance will not be granted when the contract is one to lend money does not necessarily restrict the powers of a court under section 87 to frame such order or orders as the section envisages. However, in determining whether or not to make such order or orders, the court will no doubt take into account those principles which lie behind the ordinary rule.[15]
  2. [46]
    Similarly, I conclude, the Tribunal is not bound by equitable rules denying the availability of orders for specific performance to construction contracts.  In determining whether to make such an order however it is appropriate to consider the principles behind the rules about specific performance to see if such an order is fair and appropriate in the circumstances.
  3. [47]
    Here the work that is yet to be done is of narrow scope if not absolutely known in all particulars.  It is to rectify the existing plumbing work so as to achieve final plumbing certification.  How that is to be done is up to the builder.
  4. [48]
    The builder has already performed a significant amount of work to that end replacing tapware, tapware components and some piping trying to rectify the water hammer problem.  It seems reasonable to assume that knowledge of what has been done, what tapware replaced, what piping relaid, will assist in the earliest possible identification of the problem in the most cost-effective way.  In the circumstances of this case, an award of damages does not seem appropriate.  What is necessary may be trivial.  At hearing the builder’s position was that the cause of the problem was tapware.  The work does not require ongoing Tribunal supervision.  Performance of the work will be at the discretion of the builder and satisfactory completion confirmed by Council certification. 
  5. [49]
    Has there been delay on the part of the owners such as to make the grant of the remedy against the builder unfair in the circumstances?  I conclude the answer to that question is no.  From the time of the second plumbing inspection the builder says he was waiting for the owners to contact him about replacement tapware, though that is not conceded by the owners, after which he intended to return to fit them and hopefully fix the water hammer problem.  Since 2011 the owners have pursued the builder to resolve a number of items concerning disputed defective work, not only the outstanding plumbing certification.  At hearing, the other matters were resolved by way of consent order, the terms of which are not the subject of this appeal but the existence of the outstanding issues are relevant.  By consent, the builder is to return to the property and perform work on the driveway and do all things necessary to have the driveway approved by the Council.  I conclude it is not unfair to the builder that an order now be made to also direct him to attend the property and additionally perform the necessary work to obtain final plumbing certification.

Conclusion

  1. [50]
    The builder should be ordered to rectify or arrange to have rectified at the builder’s expense within 28 days of the date of order such plumbing, pipes or tapware at the subject property necessary so as to obtain and provide to the owners a certificate of final plumbing approval from the Rockhampton Regional Council.
  2. [51]
    The owners should be required to allow such reasonable access to the property as required by the builder, his servants and agents, to achieve that.
  3. [52]
    The parties should be given the opportunity to make written submissions within 14 days of the date of decision on the question of costs of these appeal proceedings and the hearing below and that costs be determined on the papers.

Footnotes

[1]  QCAT Act s 142(3)(b).

[2] Underwood v Qld Department of Communities [2012] QCA 158; [2013] 1 QdR 252; Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112; Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294 at [3] per Keane JA.

[3]  ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Bawden [2002] QCA 286; Klooster  v Sticky Fingers (Qld) Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 282 at [12-14].

[4]  [2011] QCAT 435.

[5]  Ibid at [24].

[6]  By s 232(1)(b) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) a regulation may prescribe that development is development requiring compliance assessment.

[7]  Part B, performance requirement BP1.2(b).

[8]  Ibid BP2.3(b).

[9]  Identified as an enforcement notice by the dictionary to the Act.

[10]  SPA s 594.

[11]  Transcript Page 1-58 Line.

[12]  The exclusion in s 11 Schedule 1AA of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2003 (Qld) is best understood as only excluding “headworks” from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in being able to decide building disputes over building work involving drainage, water reticulation systems and stormwater.  Those “headworks” may or may not be within the boundaries of the property concerned.

[13]Hewett v Court [1983] HCA 7 per Wilson and Dawson JJ at [19];(1983) 149 CLR 639.

[14]  [1994] FCA 1223.

[15]  Ibid at [36-37].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Saunders v Roberts

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Saunders v Roberts

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCATA 145

  • Court:

    QCATA

  • Judge(s):

    Senior Member Stilgoe OAM, Member Howe

  • Date:

    04 Oct 2016

Appeal Status

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

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.