Brown v Smith

The matter of Brown v Smith was heard and determined by Member Taylor of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant, Emma Brown, sought damages from the respondent, Kevin Smith, a retired building inspector, for his failure to identify substantial defects in the floor frame of a house she purchased, relying on his inspection report. The respondent denied liability, asserting the defects were inaccessible during his inspection. The key issues were whether the respondent failed to properly perform his inspection, whether the applicant suffered a loss as a result, and the quantum of damages if any.

Member Taylor found that the respondent did fail to properly perform his inspection and reporting duties, as evidenced by his own report stating that he had unrestricted access and found no defects, despite clear evidence of substantial defects present at the time of inspection. However, the applicant's claim failed due to insufficient evidence to support her assertions of reliance on the report for the second purchase contract and the claimed damages. She could not prove the extent of the damages or that they were directly caused by the respondent's failure. Additionally, the second purchase contract was not contingent on a satisfactory building inspection report, weakening her claim of reliance.

Consequently, Member Taylor dismissed the applicant's claim, finding that while the respondent was at fault, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claim for damages. The failure of the proceeding was due to the applicant's inability to provide the necessary evidence, not due to the merits of the respondent's defence.