Initial proceedings and appeal between the respondent, Springfield Land Development Corporation as trustee for the Springfield Development Trust, leased land on which it developed a residential golf course community. In 2000 the respondent contracted with the appellant, Melisavon Pty Ltd, civil and structural engineering consultants, to design a clubhouse and surrounds. The appellant completed the design in mid-2003 and the respondent alleged the work was completed in accordance with that design. In June 2011 the respondent filed a claim and statement of claim alleging that the appellant negligently caused the respondent economic loss of AUD 866,258 flowing from a latent defect, namely the appellant’s negligent engineering design. The appellant contended the respondent’s cause of action was statute-barred under s 10 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) as more than six years had passed since it arose. It applied for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent’s claim with costs. The appellant appealed the primary judge’s order dismissing its application with costs.
Although the notice of appeal contained five grounds, the essential question at appeal was whether the primary judge erred in law in not granting summary judgment. The appellant contended the issue was whether the primary judge erred in finding that the limitation period did not commence until the respondent “first became aware, or ought to have become aware, that it had sustained loss because of the alleged defective design”.
Michael Hodge (led by D Kelly QC) appeared for the appellant, instructed by Thynne + Macartney.
The judgment is published here. See also  QCA 233 and Melisavon Pty Ltd v Springfield Land Development Corp  HCATrans 86.