Crafter v Jared Nichol Builder Pty Ltd - [2023] QCAT 88

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Crafter v Jared Nichol Builder Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 88

PARTIES:

FIONA CRAFTER

(applicant)

v

JARED NICHOL BUILDER PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL013-22

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Stroud

ORDERS:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – DEFECTIVE WORKS – where power failure to property caused damage to electrical items _ whether the works carried out by the builder were defective – whether the works carried out by the builder were the cause of the power failure to the property.

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 75, s 77(1), Schedule 2

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9, s 10, s 28

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

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)

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this application about?

Fiona Crafter contracted with Jared Nichol Builder Pty Ltd (builder) to build a wheelchair accessible bathroom (works) at her property. The works included some electrical wiring to the bathroom. Fourteen months after the works were completed Ms Crafter notified the builder that there had been an electrical failure at her residence resulting in damage to several electrical items. Ms Crafter claims the electrical failure was a result of defective work carried out by the builder and seeks an order that the builder compensate her for the cost of replacing the damaged items.

Does the Tribunal have Jurisdiction?

This is a domestic building dispute. The Tribunal has original jurisdiction to hear and decide ‘building disputes’.[1] The definition of building dispute includes a ‘domestic building dispute’. [2]
[1]Sections 9 and 10 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) and s 77(1) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act).
[2]QBCC Act, Schedule 2 (definition of ‘building dispute’).
A domestic building dispute includes a claim or dispute arising between a building owner and a building contractor related to the performance of ‘reviewable domestic work’ or a claim or dispute in negligence related to the performance of ‘reviewable domestic work’.[3]
[3]QBCC Act, Schedule 2 (definition of ‘domestic building dispute’).
‘Reviewable domestic work’ means ‘Tribunal work’.[4] Tribunal work includes the renovation, alteration, extension improvement or repair of a building as well as the provision of electrical work for a building.[5]
[4]Section 75(2) of the QCAT Act.
[5]Section 75(1)(b) and (c) of the QCAT Act.
I am satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

The relevant facts

On 9 June 2020 the parties entered into a QBCC Level 2 Renovation, Extension and Repair Contract for the works for a contract price of $50.071.20. The works reached practical completion on 24 August 2020.
The works included some electrical work which…

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 Crafter v Jared Nichol Builder Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Crafter v Jared Nichol Builder Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 88
Case: [2023] QCAT 88
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fiona Crafter sought compensation from Jared Nichol Builder Pty Ltd for damages caused by an electrical failure in her home, which she claimed resulted from defective electrical work done by the builder during the construction of a wheelchair-accessible bathroom. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining whether the builder's works were defective and if these defects caused the electrical failure. The Tribunal examined the evidence provided by both parties, including statements from the builder's electrician, findings from the Electrical Safety Office, and Ms Crafter's own statements.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the matter and whether Ms Crafter could prove on the balance of probabilities that the builder's works were defective and caused the electrical failure. Ms Crafter needed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims, while the builder needed to demonstrate that the works were compliant and that any alleged defects were not the cause of the power failure.

The Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as it fell within the definition of a domestic building dispute. However, the Tribunal found that Ms Crafter had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the builder's works were defective or that these defects caused the electrical failure. The builder presented evidence from the Electrical Safety Office confirming the compliance of the electrical works. Additionally, the builder's electrician provided a detailed explanation addressing the alleged defects, which was corroborated by the Electrical Safety Office's findings. Ms Crafter's evidence relied heavily on hearsay from another electrician, who did not provide a statement in the proceeding. The Tribunal found that the builder had sufficiently rebutted Ms Crafter's claims, and therefore, her application failed to meet the required standard of proof.

The Tribunal dismissed the application and ruled that the builder was not liable for the damages claimed by Ms Crafter. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to establish the builder's works as defective and the cause of the power failure.

Orders