|The Concept Developer Pty Ltd v Conroy (VSC) - judicial review - alteration of lot entitlements and liabilities in subdivision plan - VCAT’s decision affirmed - proceedings dismissed
|Agripower Australia Ltd v Queensland Engineering & Electrical Pty Ltd (QSC) - security of payments - contract between parties was illegal - first defendant not entitled to progress payments - adjudicator’s decision void
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|The Concept Developer Pty Ltd v Conroy  VSC 464
Supreme Court of Victoria
John Dixon J
Judicial review - proceeding before Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal concerned lot entitlements and lot liabilities of owners in subdivision - first and second defendants applied under s34D(1)(a) Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) for order altering lot entitlements and liabilities in subdivision plan - VCAT concluded lot entitlements and liabilities should be altered - VAAT ordered owners corporation to apply to Registrar of Titles to alter lot entitlement and lot liability in subdivision plan - plaintiff owner contended VCAT erred in construing ss32 & 33, and misconstrued the meaning of ‘just and equitable’ in s33(3) - relationship between ss32 & 33 - statutory construction - whether irrelevant considerations - held: challenges to VCAT’s conclusion failed - proceedings dismissed - orders of VCAT affirmed.
|Agripower Australia Ltd v Queensland Engineering & Electrical Pty Ltd  QSC 268
Supreme Court of Queensland
Security of payments - applicant sought declaration adjudication decision made under Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld void because contract between applicant and first respondent illegal and unenforceable - applicant submitted first respondent contravened s56 Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld) by advertising it performed electrical work when it did not hold electrical contractor’s licence - applicant also claimed first respondent and its agents were not practising professional engineers but carrying out professional engineering services contrary to s115(1) Professional Engineers Act 2002 (Qld) - first respondent accepted that if it were carrying out professional engineering services in breach Professional Engineers Act then its contract illegal and unenforceable - held: first respondent’s contract with applicant was illegal for breach of ss56 & 115 - first respondent not entitled to progress payments - application successful - adjudication decision void.