Body Corporate for 101 Albatross Ave CTS 34250 v Advance Fire Technology Pty Ltd
[2025] QCAT 461
•18 November 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Body Corporate for 101 Albatross Ave CTS 34250 v Advance Fire Technology Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 461
PARTIES:
BODY CORPORATE FOR 101 ALBATROSS AVE CTS 34250
(APPLICANT)
v
ADVANCE FIRE TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
(RESPONDENT)
APPLICATION NO/S:
BDL026-24
MATTER TYPE:
Domestic Dispute
DELIVERED ON:
18 November 2025
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
DECISION OF:
Member S M Burke
ORDERS:
The Respondent, Advance Fire Technology Pty Ltd, is to make payment to the Applicant the sum of 10,568.04 on or before 5 January 2026.
CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – where written contract not signed by the parties – whether commercial building contract void or voidable – whether terms of the contract enforceable – in the alternative contract determined by conduct of the parties – whether claim for direct costs incurred by owner available
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 30AC, s 67A, s 67AAA, s 67E, s 67 G, Schedule 1B s 14(2), s 14(10)
Cerda v Jacob [2020] QCATA 57
PRA Electrical Pty Ltd v Perserverance Exploration Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] VSCA 310West Roofing and Plumbing Pty Ltd v JBBK Construction Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 416
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Pursuant to an application for a commercial building dispute filed 17 January 2024, Dr Paul Varcoe, of Unit 1 101 Albatross Avenue, Mermaid Beach, Queensland made the following claims, as representative of the Body Corporate Committee for 101 Albatross Avenue CTS 34250:
(a)reimbursement for services that were paid for but not completed according to the Fire Safey Standards;
(b)reimbursement for the Inspection (Audit) and Remediation Work that was required so that 101 Albatross Avenue met all safety compliancy requirements;
(c)reimbursement for additional services performed during the period that the contracted services were not completed to the required Standards.
The Respondent, Advanced Fire Technology Pty Ltd, is a unit of the Advance Group of Companies (Qld) Pty Ltd with a Queensland Building and Construction Commission (“QBCC”) licence number 745715.
The dispute between the parties involved the maintenance of fire protection equipment installed at 101 Albatross Avenue, Mermaid Beach, Queensland (“the property”).
In the initial application, the Applicant claimed the sum of $22,642.17, being direct costs of $12,742.09 and rectification costs of $9,900.08.
The amended amount claimed by the Applicant was filed with the Applicant’s material on 2 September 2024. The amount claimed has been reduced to $10,188.54, being direct costs of $9,446.04 and repair costs for the original faulty installation of the fire panel, being $742.50.
Compliance with Directions
On 17 January 2024, the Applicant filed its application for a commercial building dispute.
On 29 January 2024, the Tribunal delivered directions regarding the following:
(a)the proper Applicant being Body Corporate 101 Albatross Ave CTS 34250 rather than Paul Varcoe;
(b)the filing of written evidence on which the Applicant intends to rely by 12 February 2024;
(c)the filing of a response by the Respondent by 26 February 2024.
On 19 February 2024, the Tribunal delivered directions extending the time for compliance with the directions made on 29 January 2024 to 18 March 2024 and 2 April 2024 for the Applicant and Respondent respectively.
A compulsory conference was scheduled for 9 July 2024 at which the following directions were made by the Tribunal:
(a)the Applicant was to provide any statement of evidence and any statement of evidence of any expert by 30 August 2024;
(b)the Respondent was to provide a response including any statement of evidence and statement of evidence of any expert by 11 October 2024;
(c)the Applicant was to provide any statement of evidence in reply by 25 October 2024.
On 2 September 2024, the Applicant filed a further statement of evidence and supporting material in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal dated 9 July 2025.
A statement and supporting material was filed by the Respondent on 11 October 2024.
On 7 April 2025, the Tribunal requested the parties to provide a notice in writing whether an oral hearing was required. The Applicant replied that a determination on the papers was acceptable. There was no response from the Respondent.
On 12 May 2025, the Tribunal directed that, in the absence of a response from the Respondent, the application for a commercial dispute would be heard on the papers based on the statements of evidence and the written submissions filed by the parties and without an oral hearing.
The Statutory Framework
The relevant sections of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act1991 (Qld) (“the QBCC Act”) are set out hereunder.
Section 30CA of the QBCC Act sets out the meaning of “fire protection work” as including the installation, restoration, repair or maintenance of fire protection equipment.
Part 4A of the Act specifically relates to building contracts other than domestic building contracts.
In this Part, the definition of a commercial building contract is identified as one which is a building contract that is not a construction management trade contract or a subcontract.
Section 67AA provides the definition of a building contract for this Part as being a contract or other arrangement for carrying out building work in Queensland but does not include—
(a)a domestic building contract; or
(b)a contract exclusively for construction work that is not building work.
It is then necessary to identify the meaning of “building work”. The definition of “building work” is contained in the Dictionary and specifically provides at item (g) that the term includes “fire protection work”.
The definition of a “commercial building dispute” is provided in the Dictionary as involving, for present purposes, a claim or dispute arising between a building owner and a building contractor relating to the performance of reviewable commercial work or a contract for the performance of reviewable commercial.
Following on from that definition, the definition for “reviewable commercial work” is stated to mean tribunal work [as defined in s 75(fa) to include fire protection work] other than reviewable domestic work which in turn means domestic building work under Schedule 1B, section 4 of the Act with the exception of Schedule 1B, section 4(8).
Importantly, s 67E addresses the status of a contract for the purpose of Part 4A.
Section 67E provides:
(1) Subject to any provision of this part that expressly provides that a building contract, or a provision of a building contract, is void, this part does not have effect to make void or voidable a building contract, or a provision of a building contract, even if—
(a)in entering into the building contract, or the building contract containing a provision, a party to the building contract commits an offence against this part; or
(b)the building contract or the provision of the building contract is inconsistent with a condition to which the building contract is subject under this part.
(2) However, if a building contract, or a provision of a building contract, is inconsistent with a provision (the Act provision) of this part applying to the building contract, the building contract, or the provision of the building contract, has effect only to the extent it is not inconsistent with the Act provision.”
Relevantly, s 67G requires that a building contract be in writing. Section 67G specifically provides:
(1) A building contractor commits an offence if—
(a)the building contractor enters into a building contract, whether as the contracting party or the contracted party for the contract; and
(b)the building contract is not put in writing—
(i)if the reasonable cost of the building work the subject of the contract is more than $10,000—before carrying out the building work started; or
(ii)if the reasonable cost of the building work the subject of the contract is $10,000 or less – before carrying out the building work is finished.
Maximum penalty—80 penalty units
(2) ……..
(3) A building contractor commits an offence if—
(a)the building contractor enters into a building contract, whether as the contracting party of the contracted party for the contract; and
(b)the building contract is put in writing; and
(c)the building contract, in writing, does not comply with the formal requirement for a building contract stated in subsection 4.
Maximum penalty—80 penalty units
(4) A building contract in writing complies with the formal requirements for a building contract if the contract states the following—
(a)the scope of the building work the subject of the contract;
(b)when the building work is to be completed;
(c)the amount to be paid for carrying out the building work, or, if appropriate, how the amount to be paid for carrying out the building work is to be worked out;
(d)the parties’ agreement about retention amounts and securities to be held;
(e)the name of the building contractor who is the contracted party for the building contract;
(f)the licence number of the building contractor mentioned in paragraph (c) as it appears on the building contractor’s licence card;
(g)the address of the land where the building work is to be carried out.
In contrast to the provisions above relating to a commercial building dispute about commercial work including fire protection work, it is significant to address the effect of a contract not in writing in relation to a domestic building dispute.
For this purpose, it is necessary to consider Schedule 1B of the QBCC Act which relates to domestic building contracts.
It is not necessary to identify all the elements of a domestic building contract, but for present purposes, I will consider two elements which are different from a commercial building contract.
First, the meaning of “domestic building work” in section 4 of Schedule 1B does not refer to the term “maintenance” but identities “domestic building work” as follows:
(a)the erection or construction of a detached dwelling;
(b)the renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of a home;
(c)removal or resiting work for a detached dwelling;
(d)the installation of a kit home at a building site.
Secondly, Part 2 Division 1 of Schedule 1B, in sections 13 and 14, identifies the requirements of a domestic building contract depending on whether it is a Level 1 or Level 2 regulated contract.
Relevantly, the contract must be writing and dated and signed by or on behalf of each of the parties to it. Subsection 3 of each of sections 13 and 14 details all other matters that are to be contained in the contract.
Importantly, both sections specify, in subsections (5) and (10) respectively, that the contract only has effect if it complies with subsection (2) – namely in writing and dated and signed by or on behalf of each of the parties.
The analysis of these provisions clearly identifies that there is a difference in the effects under the Statute whether the contract is a commercial building contract or a domestic building contract and the repercussions if the contract is not in writing and signed by the parties.
For present purposes, in addressing a commercial building contract, pursuant to sections 67E and 76G, the consequences of a contract not in writing imposes on the building contractor an offence which is subject to penalty units and the failure to reduce the contract to a written form does not have the effect of making the building contract void or voidable.
The distinction between a domestic building contract and a commercial building contract is thus very important when examining the repercussions for the parties when a contract is written but not signed or an agreement is simply not in a written form at all.
Evidence provided by the Applicant
The Applicant’s original claim arose from a breach of contract claiming direct costs and rectification costs in the sum of $22,642.17.
The Applicant relied upon an unsigned contract which was provided by the Respondent on or about 24 April 2020.
The parties did not sign the contract dated 24 April 2020 but did carry on with the provision of services and payment in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
The contract related to the provision of fire services at the property commencing on an unknown date (after 24 April 2020) in 2020.
The Applicant submits that there was an obligation on the Respondent to comply with the relevant Australian Standards, particularly AS1851-2012 and the Fire Safety Maintenance Schedule as advertised on the Respondent’s website.
Following on from a Defect Notice from the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services issued on 22 September 2021 regarding the hydrant diesel pumpset malfunction at the property, the Applicant sought multiple solutions for the malfunction issues and eventually organized a complete fire services audit.
As a result, the Applicant became aware of a series of defective issues or incomplete work carried out by the Respondent on the receipt of an independent report prepared by Dayshelf Fire Services (“Dayshelf”) on 18 January 2023.
On 18 January 2023, Bright & Duggan (“B&D”), the strata administrator for the Applicant, wrote to the Respondent advising that their services to complete the servicing of the fire infrastructure were no longer required.
Further on 21 March 2023, B&D set out the items of incomplete work undertaken by the Respondent despite invoices being issued for such:
(a)seven fire hoses not tested since June 2021 and one not since June 2020 when the requirement was for six monthly testing;
(b)eight fire hydrant landing valves not tested since June 2021 when the requirement was six monthly;
(c)one twin landing valves not tested since June 2021 when the requirement was six monthly;
(d)one booster valve not tested since June 2021 when the requirement was six monthly;
(e)one PCP extinguisher not tested since June 2021 when the requirement was six monthly;
(f)annual diesel service not done since 15 October 2021 when requirement was annually;
(g)lights seem to have never been tested but on recent testing 21 failed. The requirements for testing was six monthly.
Further B&D advised the Respondent that the testing of the hydrant diesel motor was not complete but rather it was logged as being “offline” despite the motor being in working, although leaking, condition. B&D stated that the contract in place was to undertake the required monthly, six monthly and annual services and from the list above the service commitment had not been fulfilled and exposed the building to a fire safety risk. A report from Dayshelf to support this was attached.
On behalf of the Applicant, B&D requested a refund for the last two years of payments made to the Respondent covering the period when the services were clearly not completed as per the services agreement and for prior periods that had not yet been investigated but were believed to also contain irregularities between what was paid and what was completed.
There was no response from the Respondent to the letter from B&D dated 21 March 2023.
The claim is for reimbursement of fire services for which the Respondent invoiced the Applicant and which the Applicant submits were not performed.
The period of the claim is for services provided in the period June 2021 to January 2023.
Initially, the claim commenced by the Applicant was couched in terms of a breach of contract claim.
At the compulsory conference, it was the subject of debate between the parties that the contract relied upon was no longer in force because it was dated 2013 and had expired by the time the claim was submitted.
It is noted that a further written but unsigned contract relating to a period commencing in 2020 has been produced by the Applicant in its material.
The written contract (whether it be the 2013 form or 2020 form) was provided by the Respondent to the Applicant.
In its response material to the evidence provided by the Respondent, the Applicant amended its claim against the Respondent with the claim being reduced to the amount of $10,188.54, being a claim only for the refund of amounts paid for works not completed.
The Applicant further stated:
(a)even though there was no signed contract between the parties, there was a business relationship whereby the Respondent were to provide fire services to the property for the period in dispute, namely June 2021 to January 2023;
(b)the Respondent was bound to comply with the legislation QDC MP6 and the relevant Standard AS 1851-2012 and that it had failed to do so;
(c)not only is there a requirement regarding the frequency of inspection for various components of the fire services (including fire doors, hose reels, hydrants and hydrant boosters) there is also a requirement that all inspections be recorded on tags or labels where appropriate, such as fire doors;
(d)there is no evidence that any of the fire systems components were inspected or recorded during the relevant period.
The statement by Dr Paul Varcoe, on behalf of the Applicant, filed 2 September 2024 identifies, with photographic evidence, the specific areas including fire doors, hose reels, hydrants, hydrant booster and fire panel where the AS 1851-2012 requirements were not met.
Dr Varcoe’s statement further identifies documentation supporting the amendment to the Applicant’s claim which has been reduced to $10,188.54 and relates to work not completed during the relevant period, being monthly inspections and costs for repairs to the fire panel which should have been done when the fire panel was originally installed in July 2021.
Evidence of the Respondent
In a statement filed 14 October 2024, Mr Scott Jones, on behalf of the Respondent, submits that it has fulfilled its contractual obligations, except in instances where the existing equipment was faulty and not being repaired which in turn caused the overall system to fail compliance.
Mr Jones further submits that the Respondent was engaged to carry out specific works as per a signed contract dated 1 August 2013 which is attached to the statement.
It is noted the written contract attached is not signed or dated but refers to the agreement commencing on 1 August 2013 with it continuing “for a term of Three (3) years and be automatically renewed annually for an additional 3 year period unless ninety (90) days before the end of the current term either party notifies the other in writing that the agreement is not being renewed”.
The Respondent contends that the only contract in existence was the earlier version applicable for three years from 2013 and that the maintenance schedule relied upon by the Applicant from the Respondent’s website is not applicable to the contract between the parties.
The Respondent does not address the 2020 version of the written contract other than to say that the contract was never signed and dated and the invoices submitted to the Applicant are based on the 2013 rates.
The Respondent contends that it has no responsibility under the contract to carry out any repairs to the fire equipment at the property and the Respondent endeavoured to assist the Applicant over many years to address issues with malfunctioning equipment. The Respondent relies upon an email chain of correspondence between the parties particularly addressing the issue with the malfunctioning fire pump.
The Respondent contends that the Applicant was not proactive in dealing with the problems with any malfunctioning equipment at the property. The Respondent repeatedly endeavoured to find a cost-effective solution to the malfunctioning fire pump.
The thread of email correspondence provided by the Respondent confirms that the Respondent used its best endeavours to assist the Applicant in finding a solution to the critical problem relating to the malfunctioning fire pump.
The Respondent denies that it failed to carry out the works required under the contract and in relation to the Applicant’s specific complaints responds as follows:
(a)the hydrants and hose reels are supplied by the hydrant pump which was offline which deemed the system inoperative and thus testing was not possible until the hydrant pump was repaired in a safe manner. The Applicant was aware of this and it provided the reasons for the Respondent issuing a critical defect report on the property;
(b)denies that the fire panel was defective;
(c)the fire pump was unable to be tested as it was not working;
(d)emergency lights were never part of the contract and repairs would not have been covered under the terms of the contract;
(e)the water check valve is part of the hydrant system which was not operational; further no repairs were covered by the terms of the contract;
(f)the fire evacuation was not under the current contract and hence not part of the contract work.
The Respondent denies that any compensation is to be paid to the Applicant as any problems incurred by the Applicant were out of the control of the Respondent.
Whilst denying that the Respondent had any obligation under the current contract to carry out repair works, the Respondent says it did carry out repair works during the relevant period 2021 to 2023 and that all work carried out adhered to the industry standards and guidelines.
The Respondent’s defence to an obligation to pay for any rectification works is that there was no formal contract between the parties and therefore no obligation for the Respondent to perform the works.
Expert Evidence
The service reports prepared by Dayshelf dated 18 January 2023 and 24 March 2023, as commissioned by the Applicant, after an inspection and audit of the property relate to the following issues:
(a)inspections and required recordings of the inspections on attached tags for fire hydrants, fire hoses, hydrant valves, landing valves and booster valves were not done in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards AS 1851:2012, AS 1841 and AS 1670;
(b)there had been no documented inspections since June 2021;
(c)defective works were evident including six hose reels, the fire panel, malfunctioning siren with basement horns not working, installation of door releases not carried out and incorrect programming resulting in interlacing and exhaust fans not operating and malfunctioning of the duct probes;
(d)the fire pump was not tested as per AS 1851-2012 with the last service being on 15 October 2020;
(e)the inspection and testing of the evacuation lighting and siren components were not done in accordance with AS 2293.2:1995 with the result 21 lights were malfunctioning;
(f)the duo water check valve was leaking severely at the inspection on 28 February 2023 and had not been inspected since June 2021;
(g)a fire evacuation plan was not in place as required by AS 1851:2012
No independent expert report has been provided by the Respondent.
Status of the Contract and Discussion
I have set out above the requirements of a contract under the QBCC Act, particularly in relation to commercial building work.
It is undisputed by the parties that the written contract between the parties had not been signed. It is also undisputed that the parties conducted themselves generally in the manner provided by the terms of the contract, in that the Respondent carried out the work required under the contract and the Applicant paid the invoiced amount on receipt.
In the matter of West Roofing and Plumbing Pty Ltd v JBBK Construction Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 416, Member Paratz AM considered the circumstances of a claim for payment for variation work in circumstances where a commercial building contract had not been signed by the building contractor and the subcontractor.
The Member identified the difference between domestic building contracts, as considered by Senior Member Brown and Member Olding in Cerda v Jacob [2020] QCATA 57, and commercial building contracts concluding that as the commercial building contract was not a “regulated contract” Schedule 1B section 14(10) was not applicable “and as no provision of Part 4A expressly provides that a subcontract for commercial work is void if it is not in writing, Part 4A does not make a subcontract for commercial work that is not in writing void or voidable.[1]
[1]West Roofing and Plumbing Pty ltd v JBBK Construction Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 416, [22]–[23].
On the analysis of the provisions of the QBCC Act, the contract between the parties, if considered to be not in writing and signed by the parties, is, for all intents according to the QBCC Act, not void or voidable based on that element alone.
Accordingly, I am of the view that the contract in its written form undated in 2020 was effective at the date of the services provided by the Respondent in the period 2021 to 2023.
In any event, if I am wrong in this analysis, I am satisfied, taking into account the conduct of the parties, that there was an agreement between the parties in the same terms as the written contract.
I have taken into account the conduct of the parties and analysed whether their conduct exhibited an intention to enter into an agreement whereby the Respondent was to provide fire protection services for which it was the obligation of the Applicant to make payment as invoiced.[2]
[2] See: supra [24]–[28].
I am satisfied that the parties conducted themselves in a manner which indicated that they both intended to be bound by the agreement relied upon but unsigned.
The questions to be asked are:
(a)Did the parties intend to enter into a legal binding agreement?
(b)Were the terms of the agreement certain?
(c)Did the parties conduct themselves in a manner which indicated that they were bound by the terms of their agreement, whether that agreement was oral, written or by conduct?
At all times, the parties conducted themselves in accordance with the original agreement in that the Respondent provided the services outlined in the agreement and the Applicant paid the invoices submitted by the Respondent. In other words, the work was performed generally in accordance with what the parties intended to be provided.
It is well established that where the terms of the contract have been reduced to writing, a signature is often relied upon as an indication of acceptance. The Courts have considered, however, that a signature is not the only way an acceptance may be communicated. The ultimate legal test is whether, based on an objective assessment, the parties should be considered to have reached agreement. If so, unless required by legislation, the lack of a signature in order to communicate acceptance of an offer will not itself be a barrier to a legally binding contract coming into effect.[3]
[3]PRA Electrical Pty Ltd v Perseverance Exploration Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] VSCA 310 outlining the principles established by the Courts.
I therefore conclude that, whilst the written contract was not executed, the parties intended and agreed to be bound by the terms of the contract which was in writing but unsigned. Also, the parties conducted themselves consistently with the provisions of the contract and it is concluded that the parties had entered into an informal or implied contract in terms of that document.
The subsequent conduct of the parties, namely the performance by the Respondent and payment by the Applicant, was unequivocal evidence of an agreement having been reached by the parties.
For completeness, even if it were not the case as set out above, in circumstances where one of the parties has led the other to believe that a binding contract was in place (in this instance the Respondent carrying out the work) and the other party has acted to their detriment in reliance on that representation, then it is also accepted that they should be estopped from denying that there was a binding contract.
The written terms of the contract specifically state that the Respondent would provide inspection, testing and preventative maintenance services in respect of the systems referred to in the written document and in accordance with the terms and conditions attached thereto.
The Table at Page 1 of the written agreement (with a commencement of 2020) identifies the services to be provided and the Standards to be met, including AS 1851-2012, AS 2293.2-1995 and QDC MP 6.1.
I have formed the view that the conduct of the parties is evidence of an intention of both parties to be bound by the terms of the written contract and that those terms are to be given effect.
Breach of Contract and Damages
The reports prepared by Dayshelf, relied upon by the Applicant, identify the many instances in which the services provided by the Respondent were incomplete or non-compliant with Australian Standards.
The report from Dayshelf dated 28 August 2024 specifically states:
Prescribed fire installations are to be maintained in accordance with state legislation QDC MP6.1. This legislation then refers to Australian Standard AS 1851-2-12 Routine Service of Fire Protection Systems and Equipment. This standard sets out requirements for routine servicing (inspection, testing, preventative maintenance and survey) of fire protection systems and equipment.
This standard provides a systematic basis for minimum routine service applicable to fire protection systems and equipment.
In some cases, MP 6.1 has variances in the testing schedule for some fire safety installations and should be carried out in accordance with this code. For example, Fire Doors under MP 6.1 for class 2 buildings are inspected annually instead of AS 1851-2-12 6 monthly.
QDC MP 6.1 refers to AS 1851-2012 standard to be used for the maintenance and testing of fire installations, this includes but not limited to 6 monthly inspections of fire hose reels, hydrant landing halves and hydrant boosters. And fire extinguishers. The standard also outlines monthly inspections for fire detection systems. There are additional routine schedules for fire detection systems which are included in AS 1851-2-12.
Where a diesel fire hydrant pump is connected to the system the 6 monthly inspection/testing of both fire hose reels and hydrant landing valves is to be carried out. This would also be the case if the fire hydrant pump was not operational as both systems would need to have a presence of water confirmed as well as the other 6 monthly routine criteria.
Fire doors are maintained as per the directions provided in QDC MP 6.1 in which class 2 buildings (residential buildings) change the fire door routine to annually. Maintenance stickers on the door frame should be present.to identify routine testing.
In all the above-mentioned logbook entries should also confirm maintenance testing and defect information recorded and reported.
The Respondent submits that much of the required work to the fire hydrant pump was not able to be performed because of the malfunctioning of the fire pump which was an ongoing issue for an extended period. The Respondent categorically denies responsibility for the complaints identified by the Applicant.
I am satisfied, on the evidence provided by Dayshelf and Dr Varcoe, that the Respondent failed to provide fire services to the standard required under AS 1851-2012.
As the Applicant has confined its claim to the period 2021 to 2023 and to direct costs only, I shall confine my consideration to those costs only.
As I have determined that there is in existence between the parties a written contract, or alternatively an agreement based on the conduct of the parties, the purpose of the damages claim is to put the Applicant in the same position as it would have been had the contract been properly performed.
The Applicant has abandoned much of its claim for rectification costs, except for one item relating to the fire alarm panel installation. In that instance, it is necessary only for me to consider the Applicant’s entitlement to the reimbursement of direct costs incurred for work which was not performed.
The Applicant claims the sum of $9,446.04, such sum being direct costs incurred during the period 5 July 2021 and 23 July 2023. These costs relate to the amount paid as invoiced for work which was not performed by the Respondent.
In addition, the Applicant claims $742.50 being repair costs required for the original faulty installation of the fire alarm panel.
On the material provided by Dr Varcoe, I am satisfied that the costs were incurred and that the Respondent either failed to perform the works or failed to provide works in accordance with the relevant Standards, namely AS 1851-2-12 and QDC MP 6.1.
Orders
Based on the reasons provided above, I am satisfied that the Applicant is entitled to be paid the sum of $10,188.54, such sum being the amount paid to the Respondent for work which was not performed or not completed and rectification of defective work..
The Applicant is further entitled to its costs of the application in the sum of $379.50.
0
3
1