Ballina Building Services Pty Ltd v Doyle - [2010] QCAT 643

CITATION:		Ballina Building Services Pty Ltd v Doyle [2010] QCAT 643
PARTIES:	Ballina Building Services Pty Ltd (Applicant)
v
Dr Mark Doyle (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BD395-09

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

24 May & 17 September 2010

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Kerrie O’Callaghan, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $42,674.25 within 14 days.

CATCHWORDS :

S30 Domestic Building Contracts Act; Whether contract existed.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Ballina Building Services Pty Ltd was self represented.
RESPONDENT:	Dr Mark Doyle was represented by Mr Laing of Counsel instructed by Michael Sing Lawyers.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant, Ballina Building Services Pty Ltd (“Ballina”) sought from the respondent, Dr Mark Doyle (“Dr Doyle”) payment of the sum of $42,674.23 being monies alleged to be owing in relation to the performance of building works by Ballina for Dr Doyle at a property situated at 11 Camphorlaure Court, Tallebudgera Valley, Queensland. The works the subject of the claim involved an extension to a residence on the property and construction of other works such as a carport and alterations to an existing shed.

Dr Doyle in his response denied that the monies were owing on the basis that in requesting works be carried out by the applicant he was acting as the agent of the registered owner of the property Knott Hill Pty Ltd (“Knott Hill”).

Background to dispute

Ballina had carried out work on the property previously. These works consisted of landscaping works and were completed in 2006 (“the first stage works”). At the time these works were carried out Dr Doyle and his then wife Dr Hertess resided at the property. There was no written contract for these works and the arrangement reached between Ballina and Dr Doyle was that Ballina would issue accounts to Dr Doyle and Dr Hertess every 7 days. Payments were then made by Dr Doyle by direct deposit into Ballina’s bank account.

Towards the completion of those works it is common ground that Dr Doyle and Dr Hertess’ marriage ended and Dr Hertess vacated the site. Those works were completed and eventually all monies owing for those works were paid.

Subsequently, in August 2007 Dr Doyle contacted Mr Watt the director of Ballina and requested that he carry out the works subject of these proceedings.

There is a dispute between the parties as to whether a written contract was given to Dr Doyle. Ballina says that it did prepare a contract and provide it to Dr Doyle however Dr Doyle disputes that.

In any event it is accepted that Dr Doyle requested works be carried out and that invoices were delivered and paid by Dr Doyle. The amount of $42,674.25 was unpaid.

Dr Doyle in his defence maintained that any acts on his part were as agent for Knott Hill Pty Ltd (“Knott Hill”), the registered owner of the property. The sole director and shareholder of Knott Hill…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ballina Building Services Pty Ltd v Doyle

Details

AGLC: Ballina Building Services Pty Ltd v Doyle [2010] QCAT 643
Case: [2010] QCAT 643
Decision Date: 23 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ballina Building Services Pty Ltd v Doyle came before the court to determine the existence of a binding contract between the parties and to assess whether the respondent, Doyle, was obligated to pay the applicant, Ballina Building Services Pty Ltd, for services rendered. The applicant sought a declaration that a contract existed and that the respondent was liable to pay the outstanding amount of $42,674.25. The respondent contested the claim, arguing that no valid contract was formed and that, as a result, there was no obligation to pay the applicant.

The central legal issue for the court to address was whether a valid and binding domestic building contract existed between the parties, as defined under section 30 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties to determine if the essential elements of a contract were satisfied, including whether there was an offer, acceptance, and consideration. Additionally, the court examined whether the contract was in writing, as required by the Act, and if the terms were clear and unambiguous.

The court found that the evidence demonstrated the existence of a valid and binding contract between the parties. The applicant had clearly offered building services, and the respondent had accepted this offer, with both parties providing consideration. Furthermore, the court held that the contract was in writing, as it was evidenced by correspondence between the parties and an invoice from the applicant. Given these findings, the court ruled that the respondent was indeed liable to pay the applicant the sum of $42,674.25 for the services provided.

The court ordered that the respondent, Doyle, pay the applicant, Ballina Building Services Pty Ltd, the sum of $42,674.25 within 14 days. This decision provided clarity on the contractual obligations of the parties and ensured that the applicant could recover the outstanding amount for the services rendered.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $42,674.25 within 14 days.

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.