QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Baker v Aquatics Pool Painting Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 280
PARTIES: SHAHLA BAKER (applicant)
v
AQUATICS POOL PAINTING PTY LTD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
BDL226-19
MATTER TYPE:
Building matters
DELIVERED ON:
8 July 2020
HEARING DATE:
On the Papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Adjudicator Stroud
ORDERS:
Aquatics Pool Painting Pty Ltd pay to Shahla Baker the sum of $1,252.
CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – OTHER MATTERS – where work performed by unlicensed builder – effect of non-compliance with s 42(1) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) – whether homeowner entitled to be reimbursed money paid for building work
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 42; Schedule 1B s 13, s 33; Schedule 2 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9, s 10
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Self-represented
Respondent:
Self–represented
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this matter about?
Shahla Baker engaged Aquatics Pool Painting Pty Ltd (APP) to apply a sealant to her swimming pool (the Works) for an agreed amount of $4,500. Ms Baker paid APP a deposit of $2,000. Ms Baker claims that APP refused to complete the Works and is seeking an order that that APP refund her the deposit.
APP states Ms Baker terminated the contract with them and that they should not be required to refund the total amount as they have already spent over $2,000 on materials and labour for the job.
No written contract was entered into for the Works and APP was not licensed to do the work.
Does the Tribunal have Jurisdiction?
The Tribunal has original jurisdiction to hear and decide ‘building disputes’.[1] The definition of building dispute includes a ‘domestic building dispute’. [2]
[1]Sections 9 and 10 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) and s 77(1) of the Queensland and Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act).
[2]QBCC Act, Schedule 2 (definition of ‘building dispute’).
A domestic building dispute includes a claim or dispute arising between a building owner and a building contractor related to the performance of reviewable domestic work or a claim or dispute in negligence related to the performance of reviewable work.[3]
[3]QBCC Act, Schedule 2 (definition of ‘domestic building dispute’).
The building work performed by APP is associated building work. Domestic building work includes associated building work[4] and is ‘reviewable domestic work’.[5]
[4]‘Domestic building work’ includes the renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of a home and associated work – QBCC Act, Schedule 1B s 4.
[5]QBCC Act, Schedule 2 (definition of ‘reviewable domestic work’).
No written contract
No written contract for the Works was entered into between the parties. Ms Baker relies upon an email dated 6 June 2019 from APP and an undated quote/invoice in the amount of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker v Aquatics Pool Painting Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] QCAT 280
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the tribunal was whether the homeowner was entitled to a reimbursement of the funds paid to the unlicensed contractor. Specifically, the tribunal had to determine whether the non-compliance with the statutory licensing requirement under the Act rendered the contractual agreement between the parties void or voidable. Additionally, the tribunal considered whether the Act provided any protection for homeowners in such circumstances, and if so, what the extent of that protection was.
The tribunal found that the contractor's non-compliance with the statutory licensing requirement did indeed render the agreement void. This conclusion was based on the express language of section 42(1) of the Act, which stipulates that a person cannot carry out building work unless they are a licensed builder. The tribunal reasoned that the purpose of the Act was to protect homeowners from substandard work and to ensure that only qualified individuals performed such work. Since the contractor was not licensed, the agreement was void ab initio, meaning it was invalid from the outset. Consequently, the tribunal ordered Aquatics Pool Painting Pty Ltd to refund the full amount of $1,252 to Shahla Baker.
Orders
Orders of the court
Aquatics Pool Painting Pty Ltd pay to Shahla Baker the sum of $1,252.
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.