Burton v Coast Wide Construction Group Trust

[2023] QCAT 522

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Burton v Coast Wide Construction Group Trust [2023] QCAT 522

PARTIES:

LUKE BURTON

(applicant)

v

THE TRUSTEE FOR THE COASTWIDE CONSTRUCTION GROUP TRUST

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL298-22

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member King-Scott

ORDERS:

The Respondent pay the Applicant the sum of $7,260.00 by 4:00 pm on 10 January 2024

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND

RELATED CONTRACTS – OTHER MATTERS – builder left site incomplete work

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

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

1. By a contract in writing dated 5 May 2022 the Respondent builder, Coast Wide Construction Group Trust agreed to construct a shed at the Applicant’s Tewantin home.

2. The Contract was for the sum of $6,800.00. Mr Burton paid a deposit of $680 on 24 May 2022.

3. The Respondent is misdescribed in the proceedings, its correct name as appears on the contract is The Trustee for Coastwide Construction Group Trust which is consistent with its ABN number provided. Pursuant to s.64 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) I order that the proceedings be amended to reflect the correct name.

4. It would appear that the Respondent provided a false licence certificate to the Applicant.

5. Work commenced on 24 May 2022. Mr Burton ordered and paid $2,300.00 for additional materials. On 4 June 2022 he paid the Respondent, 40% ($2,720.00) of the contract sum for the frame stage. A further sum of $850.00 was paid for flashing on 10 June 2022.

6. The Respondent left the site on 9 June 2022 and has not returned. Nor has it communicated with the Applicant. The framework was partially completed but was not square and had to be demolished and rebuilt by a builder retained by the Applicant to complete the works.

7. The Applicant alleges that, because of the delay in finding a new builder to complete the work, he incurred additional storage costs for goods to be stored in the new shed.

8. The Applicant claims the following:

   (a)Cost to demolish the framing stage  $1,360.00

   (b)Material paid for by the applicant and taken by the respondent $2,300.00

   (c)Framing stage paid  $2,720.00

   (d)Additional storage at $220 per month for 4 months                   $880.00

   Total  $7,260.00

9. I am satisfied that the claim is reasonable and allow the sum of $7,260.00 as damages for breach of contract.

10. I order the Respondent pay the Applicant the sum of $7,260.00 by 4:00 pm on 10 January 2024.