In Colormode Pty Ltd v Civic Construction Group Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 148, the case revolved around three contracts entered between Colormode, a painting contractor, and Civic, a building contractor, related to the painting of residential apartments. Colormode claimed payment for work, including alleged variations not formally recognized within the original terms of the contracts, and sought the return of retention money. Civic contested the claims, asserting that the variations were not properly sought and the required procedural compliance was not met. The District Court ruled in favor of Colormode for its retention claim under one contract, highlighting issues with Civic's procedural handling, but overall found that Colormode did not establish adequate entitlement to claim many of the variations due to non-compliance with contractual terms that dictated how variations should be requested and approved. Consequently, Colormode was awarded a sum of $38,120.80 plus interest, with the parties ordered to submit further documentation on interest and costs.
Full text: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/148902
From the TLDR Caselaw archive