Bocquee v Baltus

Case [2019] QCAT 280


QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Bocquee v Baltus [2019] QCAT 280
PARTIES: LYNN BOCQUEE

(applicant)

V

LAURENCE ANTHONY BALTUS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL010-19

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown

ORDERS:

1.   Laurence Anthony Baltus must pay Lynn Bocquee FIFTEEN THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND TWENTY CENTS ($15,127.20) by 4:00pm on 15 October 2019.

2.   Laurence Anthony Baltus must pay Lynn Bocquee’s costs fixed in the amount of THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHT DOLLARS AND TWENTY CENTS ($338.20) by 4:00pm on 15 October 2019.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – LEGALITY - where domestic building contract does not comply with Schedule 1B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) – whether a breach of contract can be established

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – DAMAGES – MEASURES OF – where contract entered into for the performance of building work – where builder is unlicensed - where builder performs unlicensed building work – where builder not entitled to consideration for performing building work – assessment of damages

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – OTHERS – where homeowner vulnerable – whether builder owed duty of care to homeowner – damages payable where work is defective

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 77, sch 1B s 13(2), s 13(5), sch 2

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 48

Basscorp Pty Ltd v Kosik [2007] CCT B411-05

Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613

Chad Roberts Constructions Pty Ltd v Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd  [1993] ABT BC9302692

Cook's Construction P/L v SFS 007.298.633 Pty Ltd (formerly trading as Stork Food Systems Australasia Pty Ltd) [2009] QCA 75
Corporation of the City of Adelaide v Jennings Industries Ltd (1985) 156 CLR 274

Mertens v Home Freehold Co [1921] 2 KB 526.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388
Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180

Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850; 154 ER 363

Sablewell Pty Ltd V Kirstborough Pty Ltd and Ors QBT BC9505897

Ventura v Svirac (1961) WAR 63

Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

No appearance

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

  1. Ms Bocquee contracted with Mr Baltus to perform tiling works at Ms Bocquee’s townhouse.  Ms Bocquee says that the works performed by Mr Baltus are defective.

    Background to the dispute

  2. On 31 October 2017 Mr Baltus provided Ms Bocquee with a written quote for the tiling of the patio at the rear of Ms Bocquee’s townhouse.  The cost of the works was $4,226.00. The quote states ‘no GST charged’.

  3. The quote included the number…

Continue reading Bocquee v Baltus

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bocquee v Baltus [2019] QCAT 280
Case
[2019] QCAT 280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bocquee v Baltus involved a domestic building contract that did not comply with the requirements of Schedule 1B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld). The homeowner, Lynn Bocquee, engaged Laurence Anthony Baltus to perform building work on her property, but the contract was not properly executed. The primary issues before the court were whether Baltus could establish a breach of contract due to the non-compliance with the statutory requirements and if Bocquee was entitled to damages as a result of Baltus's unlicensed status and the defective work. Additionally, the court had to determine if Baltus owed a duty of care to Bocquee given her vulnerable position as a homeowner, and if so, the extent of damages payable for the defective work.

The court found that the contract was indeed void due to its failure to comply with the statutory requirements, which nullified any contractual obligations. Given the void nature of the contract, Baltus was not entitled to any consideration for the work performed. The court assessed the damages payable to Bocquee based on the value of the work performed, as there was no contract to provide a basis for claiming additional damages. The court acknowledged the vulnerability of Bocquee as a homeowner and found that Baltus owed a duty of care to her. However, since the work was defective, Bocquee was entitled to damages to cover the cost of rectifying the defective work.

The court ordered Baltus to pay Bocquee $15,127.20 by a specified date in October 2019, representing the value of the work performed. Additionally, Baltus was ordered to pay Bocquee's costs of $338.20 by the same date. The court's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in domestic building contracts and the potential consequences for both parties when such requirements are not met. The outcome underscored the protection afforded to homeowners under the Building and Construction Commission Act, ensuring that they receive fair compensation for defective work.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Laurence Anthony Baltus must pay Lynn Bocquee FIFTEEN THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND TWENTY CENTS ($15,127.20) by 4:00pm on 15 October 2019.

2. Laurence Anthony Baltus must pay Lynn Bocquee’s costs fixed in the amount of THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHT DOLLARS AND TWENTY CENTS ($338.20) by 4:00pm on 15 October 2019.

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.