Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] QSC 77
14-4-23 / Jason Mitchenson — Contract
Jason Mitchenson (with P O'Shea KC) appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth. In 2021, the Supreme Court of Queensland referred all questions arising on the pleadings to three referees. On 7 March 2023, the referees provided a draft of their report to parties. In response to the…
Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QSC 301
19-11-21 / Jason Mitchenson — Building & Construction, Contract
Jason Mitchenson (with T P Sullivan QC) appeared for the defendant, instructed by Thomson Geer. Further proceedings relating to the calculation of interest arising from her Honour’s decision in Built QLD Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd [2021] QSC 244. The primary question before the Court…
Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd & Anor (No 3) [2021] QSC 281
8-11-21 / Jason Mitchenson — Contract
Jason Mitchenson (with P O'Shea QC) appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth. This case involved three applications made in relation to Santos and Fluor’s long-running dispute. The applications included a Power of Referees to determine privilege, an application by Fluor challenging privilege claims by Santos, and an…
Ausipile Pty Ltd v Bothar Boring and Tunnelling (Australia) Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 223
15-10-21 / Jason Mitchenson — Building & Construction, Contract
This matter was an appeal concerning the validity of a payment claim made under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) (BIF Act). The primary question before the Court of Appeal was whether the payment claim in question (which purported to be made under a one contract)…
Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd [2021] QSC 224
3-9-21 / Jason Mitchenson — Building & Construction, Contract
This proceeding concerned the construction of a hotel in Brisbane. The Plaintiff (contractor) brought proceedings against the Defendant (principal) seeking AUD 6,567,108.09, primarily in relation to a single alleged variation which was said to have arisen by reason of defective work notices issued by the Defendant. The alleged variation was…
