Currow v Sophocleous - [2025] QCAT 174

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Currow v Sophocleous [2025] QCAT 174

PARTIES:

JOANNE CURROW

(applicant)

v

MICHAEL SOPHOCLEOUS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL169-22

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

15 November 2023
2 October 2024
3 October 2024
4 October 2024

30 October 2024

HEARD AT:

Cairns

DECISION OF:

Member Taylor

ORDERS:

1.     The applicant’s claim is dismissed.

2.     The respondent’s claim by counterapplication is dismissed.

3.     Subject to Order 4 herein, costs are reserved.

4.     Subject to Order 5 herein, should the parties not agree on the issue of costs within 21 days of the date of this order, the issue of costs will be determined by this Tribunal in accordance with the following directions:

(a)     Within 28 days of the date of this order, the parties are to each file their respective submissions on costs.

(b)     Within 14 days of being served with the other party’s submissions, each party is to file their submissions on costs including in reply (if any).

(c) Unless either party requests a hearing on costs within their submissions filed as per (a) and (b) herein, the issue of costs will thereafter be determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

5.     In the event that neither party makes any submission on costs in compliance with Order 4(a) herein, the order on costs will be that each party is to bear their own costs of this proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – OTHER MATTERS – where homeowner alleged defects or omissions in work required substantial remedial work – where the allegedly defective work was work said not to have complied with requirements of the relevant Australian Standards and/or manufacturer’s specification – where the homeowner also asserted there was consequential damages arising from the defective work – whether the homeowner’s evidence supported the claim as made – where there was an absence of relevant independent expert opinion evidence

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77, Schedule 1B s 4, s 20, s 21

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28(3)(c)

Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 369

Owners SP 92450 v JKN Para 1 Pty Limited [2023] NSWCA 114
Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509
Penfold v Firkn & Balvius [2023] QCATA 11
Owners SP 92450 v JKN Para 1 Pty Limited [2023] NSWCA 114

State of New South Wales v Stevens (2012) 82 NSWLR 106

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

November 2023 - Self-represented

October 2024 – Ms R.J. Saunders – Solicitor WGC Lawyers

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms Currow lives in her house in Yorkey’s Knob, a northern beaches suburb of Cairns in Far North Queensland. It is one of the older suburbs of the region. A significant feature of the style of many houses in that area is a very low pitched roof.
She…

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 Currow v Sophocleous

Details

AGLC: Currow v Sophocleous [2025] QCAT 174
Case: [2025] QCAT 174
Decision Date: 6 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Currow v Sophocleous involved a homeowner, the applicant, who alleged defects in work performed by the respondent, a builder, during the construction of their home. The dispute arose from claims of non-compliance with Australian Standards and manufacturer specifications, as well as consequential damages resulting from the defective work. The matter was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The primary legal issues were whether the homeowner's evidence adequately supported the claims of defective work and consequential damages, and whether the absence of independent expert opinion evidence affected the homeowner's case.

The Tribunal found that the homeowner's evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the claims as presented. The homeowner's evidence lacked detail and specificity, and there was no independent expert opinion to support the homeowner's assertions about the defects and their consequences. The Tribunal concluded that the homeowner had not met the burden of proof required to establish the claims. As a result, the applicant's claim was dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's claim by counterapplication, finding no grounds for the respondent's claims against the applicant.

The Tribunal reserved the issue of costs, subject to the parties reaching an agreement within 21 days. Should the parties fail to agree, the issue of costs would be determined by the Tribunal based on written submissions, unless a hearing was requested. In the event that neither party submitted on costs, each party would bear their own costs. This decision underscores the importance of detailed and supported evidence in claims related to building and engineering contracts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s claim is dismissed.

2. The respondent’s claim by counterapplication is dismissed.

3. Subject to Order 4 herein, costs are reserved.

4. Subject to Order 5 herein, should the parties not agree on the issue of costs within 21 days of the date of this order, the issue of costs will be determined by this Tribunal in accordance with the following directions:

(a) Within 28 days of the date of this order, the parties are to each file their respective submissions on costs.

(b) Within 14 days of being served with the other party’s submissions, each party is to file their submissions on costs including in reply (if any).

(c) Unless either party requests a hearing on costs within their submissions filed as per (a) and (b) herein, the issue of costs will thereafter be determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

5. In the event that neither party makes any submission on costs in compliance with Order 4(a) herein, the order on costs will be that each party is to bear their own costs of this proceeding.

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.