Avilake Pty Ltd v Tucker

Case [2012] QCAT 41


CITATION: Avilake Pty Ltd v Tucker and Anor [2012] QCAT 41
PARTIES: Avilake Pty Ltd ABN 341 105 202 71
v
William Edward Tucker
Julie Jean Tucker
APPLICATION NUMBER:   BD486-09
MATTER TYPE: Building matters
HEARING DATE: 12 & 13 September 2011
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Ann Fitzpatrick, Member
DELIVERED ON: 6 January 2012
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:    

[1]     The applicant’s application is dismissed.

[2]     The respondents’ counter-application is dismissed.

[3]     The applicant file and serve any further submissions in relation to costs by 13 January 2012.

[4]     The respondents’ file and serve any further submissions in relation to costs by 27 January 2012.

[5]     The applicant file and serve any reply by 7 February 2012.

CATCHWORDS: 

Practical completion stage payment – claim for debt not damages – suspension of works – validity of notice of intention to terminate and termination of contract – wrongful repudiation – time for performance of defective and incomplete work

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000, s 67

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: 

Avilake Pty Ltd represented by Mr Kym Flehr of Kym Flehr Legal Solutions

RESPONDENT:  William Edward Tucker and Julie Jean Tucker represented by Ms Gemma Robson of McCarthy Durie Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. The applicant, Avilake Pty Ltd filed an application in relation to a domestic building dispute in the former Commercial and Consumer Tribunal on 19 November, 2009.  The functions of that Tribunal with respect to domestic building disputes are now performed by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

  1. By its application, Avilake seeks an order for payment by the respondents, Mr and Mrs Tucker, of the following sums:

(a)$25,500.00 being the amount alleged to be outstanding under a residential building contract between the parties;

(b)$3,502.57 being the amount alleged to be owed pursuant to a preliminary agreement between the parties.

  1. The applicant also seeks interest and costs.

  1. The Tuckers deny that they owe any sum to Avilake and have lodged a counter-application, seeking orders for payment by Avilake of certain sums for rectification of alleged defects, completion of building works, the cost of a building inspection report and legal costs.  In their final submissions, the Tuckers also sought an order that Avilake release all building certificates it holds.

Background Facts

  1. The following facts are set out in the various statements filed and tendered in these proceedings.  I accept the evidence in relation to these matters, except where I note that the asserted facts are disputed.  In which case a separate finding will be made, if necessary.

  1. Avilake is a licensed builder.  Its Director, Tim Jackson was the builder’s representative.

  1. The Tuckers proposed that a house be constructed on their land at 15 Alkira Street, Macleay Island.

  1. On 15 June, 2008, Avilake and the Tuckers entered into a written Queensland Master Builders Association form of preliminary agreement.  Under that agreement the builder agreed to:

·have the site surveyed;

·obtain the foundations data, e.g. soil test/ contour plan;

·have drawings and specifications prepared;

·alter and amend such drawings and specifications…

Continue reading Avilake Pty Ltd v Tucker

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Avilake Pty Ltd v Tucker [2012] QCAT 41
Case
[2012] QCAT 41
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Avilake Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought a declaration and payment from Tucker, the respondent, in relation to a contract for the construction of a residential building. The dispute arose from a claim for debt, not damages, regarding a payment for work completed up to the practical completion stage. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues involved the validity of the notice of intention to terminate and the subsequent termination of the contract, as well as the respondent’s alleged wrongful repudiation of the contract. Additionally, the court had to determine the time frame within which the applicant could perform any defective and incomplete work.

The court considered the procedural correctness of the respondent’s notice of intention to terminate and whether it complied with the contractual requirements. It also examined whether the respondent had wrongfully repudiated the contract, which would entitle the applicant to seek damages. The court found that the notice of intention to terminate was valid and properly served, and that the respondent did not wrongfully repudiate the contract. The court concluded that the applicant had not established a basis for claiming the debt sought. The court further found that the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable time frame within which to perform any defective and incomplete work.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed both the applicant’s application and the respondent’s counter-application. The court ordered the applicant to file and serve any further submissions in relation to costs by a specified date. The respondent was also directed to file and serve any further submissions in relation to costs by a later date. The applicant was further required to file and serve any reply by an additional specified date.

Orders

Orders of the court

[1] The applicant’s application is dismissed.

[2] The respondents’ counter-application is dismissed.

[3] The applicant file and serve any further submissions in relation to costs by 13 January 2012.

[4] The respondents’ file and serve any further submissions in relation to costs by 27 January 2012.

[5] The applicant file and serve any reply by 7 February 2012.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.