Buonanova v Miller - [2022] QCAT 379

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Buonanova v Miller [2022] QCAT 379

PARTIES:

Nick buonanova

(applicant)

v

adam tyson miller

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL159-20

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2022

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Bishop

ORDERS:

1. Mr Miller is to pay Mr Buonanova the sum of $10.00 within 28 days of the date of this decision.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – whether the breach caused, or materially caused, the loss

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld)

Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare [1992] HCA 27
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare [1992] HCA 27
Reid v Moreland Timber Co Pty Ltd (1946) 73 CLR 1
Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

Mr Buonanova claims he entered into a contract with Mr Miller of Global Stairs on 5 February 2019. His written evidence[1] was Global Stairs commenced work on 29 March 2019 but, despite Mr Buonanova’s continual prompting – which the Tribunal accepts[2] – failed to complete the work in a timely manner.
[1]Statement of Nick Buonanova signed and dated 20 October 2021 and filed 25 October 2021.
[2]See Exhibit D of Mr Buonanova’s statement.
On 10 June 2020, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) issued to Mr Miller a direction to rectify and/or complete work under section 72 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (the Act).[3] Mr Buonanova’s evidence was Mr Miller rectified the work on 13 July 2020 and provided to him the certification paperwork on 22 July 2020.[4]
[3]See Exhibit L of Mr Buonanova’s statement.
[4]Statement of Nick Buonanova signed and dated 20 October 2021 and filed 25 October 2021.
Mr Buonanova claims Mr Miller’s failure to complete the work until 22 July 2020 caused him financial loss and he is seeking $2,071.[5]
[5]Ibid, Application for domestic building dispute (Form number 26 version 3) filed 2 July 2020.
Under sections 77(1) and 77(2) of the Act a person who is involved in a building dispute can make an application to the Tribunal if that person has complied with established QBCC processes. Attached to Mr Buonanova’s application was evidence of QBCC processes being complied with and the Tribunal is satisfied it has jurisdiction.

Contractual claim

Mr Buonanova provided a receipt from Mr Miller of Global Stairs addressed to Mr Buonanova.[6] The receipt numbered 00316 was for a ‘job’ at site address 156 Monaco Street Broadbeach and dated 5 February 2019. The receipt relevantly states:
Supply install steel mono stringer to stairwell black consisting of 3 flights and 2 landings Treads to be vic (sic)…

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 Buonanova v Miller

Details

AGLC: Buonanova v Miller [2022] QCAT 379
Case: [2022] QCAT 379
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Buonanova v Miller, the applicant, Nick Buonanova, sought damages from Adam Tyson Miller for the latter's failure to complete work in a timely manner. The respondent, Mr Miller, argued that he was not liable for the applicant's loss. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining whether Mr Miller's breach of contract caused or materially caused the loss claimed by Mr Buonanova and, if so, to what extent.

The Tribunal found that although Mr Miller breached an implied term of the contract by taking nearly 18 months to complete the work, this breach did not cause or materially cause Mr Buonanova's loss. Furthermore, the contract term regarding the time of completion was ambiguous and, in the absence of a stipulated timeframe, an implied term existed that the work must be done within a reasonable time. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Miller's delay in completing the work was not reasonable, but it did not result in Mr Buonanova suffering a financial loss. As a result, the Tribunal awarded Mr Buonanova nominal damages of $10.00.

In addition, the Tribunal found that Mr Miller did not submit a valid counter-application for costs as he failed to follow the required procedural steps and pay the necessary filing fee. The Tribunal exercised its discretion not to award costs to either party, taking into account the circumstances of the case.

The Tribunal ordered Mr Miller to pay Mr Buonanova the sum of $10.00 within 28 days of the date of the decision.

Orders