- Home
- Nomination
- UK Cases
- Overseas Cases
- Panel
- Guidance
- Glossary
- Legislation
- England & Wales
- Wales
- Scotland
- Northern Ireland
- Australia (Australian Capital Territory)
- Australia (New South Wales)
- Australia (Northern Territory)
- Australia (Queensland)
- Australia (Southern Territory)
- Australia (Tasmania)
- Australia (Victoria)
- Australia (Western Australia)
- Eire
- Isle of Man
- Malaysia
- New Zealand
- Singapore
- Links
- Contact Us
Neumann Contractors Pty Ltd v Traspunt No 5 Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 119
Contracts – Building, engineering and related contracts – Remuneration– Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – respondent made a payment claim against appellant under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) (BCIP Act) – appellant did not deliver a payment schedule – appellant challenged validity of payment claim – respondent given summary judgment for amount claimed – whether primary judge erred in giving summary judgment - Contracts - Building Contracts – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – STATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS – appellant alleged a prior payment claim existed in respect of the same reference date – respondent argued prior claim did not meet requirements of BCIP Act – respondent argued prior claim not properly served – whether alleged prior claim valid – whether second claim in breach of s 17(5) BCIP Act - CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – STATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS – appellant alleged respondent had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct – whether there was an arguable case for breach of s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – whether primary judge erred in giving summary judgment CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – STATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS – appellant argued payment claim not made in good faith – whether requirement under BCIP Act that payment claims be made in good faith -ESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL IN PAIS – EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – appellant alleged estoppel based on a course of conduct – whether estoppels available as a defence to an application for judgment on a payment claim
Click here to read full-screen | Click here to print the case