Cai v Homecorp Constructions Pty Ltd - [2025] QCAT 49

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Cai v Homecorp Constructions Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 49

PARTIES:

WENMIN CAI

(applicant)

v

HOMECORP CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

BDL286-23

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

29 January 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

DECISION OF:

Member Taylor

ORDERS:

1. The applicant’s Application for Domestic Building Dispute filed 4 September 2023 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – OTHER MATTERS – where a home owner entered into a building contract to construct a house on land which at the time of contract was not a registered lot – where the owner had paid a deposit under that building contract – where the building contractor went into liquidation before construction of the house commenced – where the owner subsequently entered into a new building contractor with a second contractor – where the second contractor did not require payment as deposit under the second building contract of the amount the owner had paid as a deposit under the first building contract - where the land was subject of a contract of purchase with a sunset date attached to it – where the lot was not registered by the sunset date resulting in the land sale contract being terminated – where the second building contract was subsequently terminated – where the homeowner sought a refund from the second building contractor of the deposit paid under the first building contract – where the owner relied on terms of the second building contract as the premise for the refund claim – where the owner’s action was a renunciation of the second building contract – where the second contractor accepted that action and terminated the contract – where in the alternative the parties mutually discharged the contract - whether the second building contractor is liable to the owner for the amount of the deposit paid under the first building contract

Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007) 233 CLR 115

Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620

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

There are four proceedings in this Tribunal that ran together, each premised on similar facts and circumstances. Whilst the applicants are different, they all involve the same respondent. This is one of them. The others are BDL 287-23 – Chen v Homecorp; BDL 291-23 – Zhang & Anor v Homecorp; and BDL 293-23 – Luo v Homecorp.
The material filed for each of the applicants in the four matters was effectively identical in its format and content save only for the unique references therein to names of the applicants, the relevant property addresses, and dates and details of relevant contract and corresponding events.[1] Given such, I infer it was prepared by the same advisor to the applicants, and as will be apparent on reading of these reasons I infer that each of the…

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 Cai v Homecorp Constructions Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Cai v Homecorp Constructions Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 49
Case: [2025] QCAT 49
Decision Date: 29 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cai, the homeowner, filed an application against Homecorp Constructions Pty Ltd, a building contractor, in the Domestic Building Dispute Resolution (DBDR) tribunal. Cai had entered into a building contract with Homecorp for the construction of a house on land that was not a registered lot at the time of the contract. Cai paid a deposit to Homecorp, but before construction began, Homecorp went into liquidation. Cai then entered into a new building contract with a second contractor. However, the second contractor did not require Cai to pay the deposit from the first contract as part of the new contract. The land Cai intended to build on was subject to a contract of purchase with a sunset date, and when the lot was not registered by that date, the land sale contract was terminated, leading to the termination of the second building contract. Cai sought a refund of the deposit paid to Homecorp from the second contractor, arguing that the second contract's terms entitled him to the refund. Cai contended that his action amounted to a renunciation of the second building contract, which the second contractor accepted, resulting in the contract's termination. Alternatively, Cai suggested that the parties mutually discharged the contract. The central issue before the tribunal was whether the second contractor was liable to Cai for the deposit paid to Homecorp.

The tribunal found that Cai’s action amounted to a renunciation of the second building contract, which the second contractor accepted, resulting in the termination of the contract. The tribunal held that since the contract was terminated by mutual agreement, there was no basis for Cai to claim the deposit from the second contractor. The tribunal dismissed Cai's application, concluding that the second contractor was not liable for the deposit paid to Homecorp. The tribunal reasoned that since Cai had effectively terminated the second contract by renouncing it, any claim for the deposit must be directed towards Homecorp, which was now in liquidation. The tribunal did not find merit in the alternative argument of mutual discharge of the contract, as it was clear that the contract was terminated by Cai's renunciation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s Application for Domestic Building Dispute filed 4 September 2023 is dismissed.

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.