Canavan v Sutton - [2020] QCAT 374

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Canavan v Sutton [2020] QCAT 374

PARTIES: SHARON CANAVAN

(applicant)

v

PAUL BRUCE SUTTON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL068-19

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 September 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Fitzpatrick

ORDERS:

The respondent Paul Bruce Sutton is ordered to pay the Applicant Sharon Canavan the sum of $520.00 within 21 days of the date of this Order.

CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – MEASURE OF – where no enforceable contract – where finding of negligent construction work open on the application and statements of evidence – where damages for negligent construction work awarded

Building Regulation 2006, s49

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s9, s11
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act
1991 (Qld), Schedule 1B: s13(2) and (5), s19, s20, s21, s22, s77; Schedule 2

Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609
Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258

Thompson and Anor v Jedanhay Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 246

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

B Bathersby, Solicitor, Garland Waddington, Solicitors

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

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

The applicant Sharon Canavan filed an application for a domestic building dispute on 27 February 2019. The applicant filed an amended application on 28 October 2019. Ms Canavan seeks an award for damages and interest on damages and costs.
The claim is made against the respondent Mr Sutton.
No party has requested an oral hearing. The matter will be determined on the papers.
I have referred to:
(a)the amended application filed 28 October 2019;
(b)Mr Sutton’s response filed 8 November 2019;
(c)Mr Sutton’s response filed 28 April 2020;
(d)statement of Sharon Canavan filed 13 August 2019 together with exhibits SLC1-SLC 10;
(e)statement of Shane Matthew James Sutton filed 13 August 2019;
(f)statement of Simon Dibb filed 13 August 2019;
(g)email from Mr Sutton to QCAT, QBCC and Sharon Canavan dated 7 August 2019, attaching Form 15 Engineering Certificate, Drawings and the original quotation to Sharon Canavan, noted as filed on 7 August 2019.
The material filed in the Tribunal reveals the following facts.
On letterhead bearing the name East Coast Shades, Mr Sutton signed a written quote to Ms Canavan to supply and install shade structures at her home. East Coast Shades is not a registered business name. The quote dated 17 November 2017 covered a range of options and prices for the type of shade structures which could be installed. The quote records Mr Sutton’s Licence Number 703087.
There is no reference to the company EC Shades Australia Pty Ltd on the quote.
EC Shades Australia Pty Ltd is the holder of a QBCC Licence no 15109793. However, that licence only commenced on 11 February 2019, after the subject work was completed. Mr Sutton is that company’s nominee. He is a…

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 Canavan v Sutton

Details

AGLC: Canavan v Sutton [2020] QCAT 374
Case: [2020] QCAT 374
Decision Date: 24 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sharon Canavan sought to recover from Paul Bruce Sutton, her former partner, the cost of rectifying negligent construction work on their property. The matter was heard and determined in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The central legal issues were whether there was an enforceable contract between the parties and, if so, what the appropriate measure of damages for the breach of such a contract might be.

The Tribunal found that, while there was no formal written contract between the parties, there was an enforceable agreement by conduct. This finding was open on the evidence presented, and the Tribunal was satisfied that the evidence supported it. The measure of damages for breach of contract in these circumstances was also considered. The Tribunal found that the appropriate measure of damages was the cost of rectifying the negligent work. This was a reasonable and proportionate measure, given the nature of the breach and the loss suffered by the Applicant.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal took into account the nature of the work, the extent of the defects, and the cost of rectifying those defects. The Tribunal found that the evidence supported the Applicant's claim that the work was negligently performed and that the cost of rectifying the defects was a reasonable measure of damages. The Tribunal also found that there were no mitigating factors that would reduce the amount of damages recoverable. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant the sum of $520.00 within 21 days of the date of the Order.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent Paul Bruce Sutton is ordered to pay the Applicant Sharon Canavan the sum of $520.00 within 21 days of the date of this Order.

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.