Coppens v Waterwise Design Pty Ltd - [2015] QCAT 135

CITATION:

Coppens v Waterwise Design Pty Ltd [2015] QCAT 135

PARTIES:	Josephine Rosalie Coppens (Applicant)
v
Waterwise Design Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BDL375-10

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Favell

DELIVERED ON:

30 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $9023.15 by 4pm 1 July 2015.

CATCHWORDS:

Building matters – costs

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 86, s 100, s 102, s 107 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 (Qld) s 70, s 71
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 r 87
Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld) s 77

Ascot v Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [2010] QCAT 364
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] 193CLR 72
Latoudis v Casey [1990] 170 CLR 534
Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178
Ralacom Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Paradise Island CTS 17653 (No. 2) [2010] QCAT 412 Tamawood Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111 Queensland Building Services Authority v Johnston [2011] QCATA 265

Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 071

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuit to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 29 October 2013 the tribunal dismissed a claim by the applicant for an order that the respondent pay the applicant sums of $63,410.21 and $22,310.15 plus interest.
Essential to the claims made by the applicant was a belief by Ms Coppens that the sewerage system installed at her premises is an illegal waste water treatment plant. In each of the orders sought against Waterwise there was an assertion that Mr Clifford Searle supplied false and misleading information so as to ‘divert the course of justice’ and that there was a failure in a statutory duty of care. The claim was partly based on a contention that Mr Searle, on behalf of Waterwise, supplied information to the Hervey Bay City Council contained in an onsite sewerage facility designer compliance statement and a compliance certificate which contained false and misleading information.
The tribunal found that Ms Coppens had not established that Mr Searle supplied false and misleading information to the Hervey Bay City Council in the onsite sewerage facility design compliance statement. Further she had not shown that the design was not an appropriate design. The tribunal could not find any evidence of Mr Searle being in breach of any statutory duty of care. The tribunal found that the respondent was engaged to carry out the design of a disbursement area and not an onsite sewerage facility.
The respondent Waterwise seeks an order that the Ms Coppens pay its cost of an incidental nature to the application for domestic building disputes.
Both parties were given the opportunity to make submissions and provide evidence in respect of that application. Both have done so.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Coppens v Waterwise Design Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QCAT 135
Decision Date: 30 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Coppens v Waterwise Design Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the applicant, Coppens, and the respondent, Waterwise Design Pty Ltd, pertaining to issues arising from a building contract. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant sought relief under the Building Act 1975 (Qld), specifically related to costs incurred for the construction of a house. The core of the dispute was whether the respondent was entitled to claim additional costs beyond what was initially agreed upon in the contract.

The central legal issue before QCAT was whether the respondent was entitled to additional costs for variations made to the initial building contract. The applicant argued that the respondent had not provided adequate documentation to justify the additional costs claimed. The respondent contended that the additional costs were reasonable and necessary, given the variations that were agreed upon during the construction process.

In addressing the legal issues, QCAT examined the terms of the building contract and the evidence provided by both parties. The tribunal found that the respondent had not provided sufficient documentation to substantiate the additional costs claimed. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that the respondent was not entitled to the additional costs beyond what was initially agreed upon in the contract. As a result, the tribunal ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $9023.15 by 4pm 1 July 2015. This decision underscored the importance of proper documentation and adherence to contractual agreements in building disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $9023.15 by 4pm 1 July 2015.

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.