DC Mills Developments v Fitch
Case
•
[2015] QCAT 114
•24 March 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
DC Mills Developments v Fitch [2015] QCAT 114
[2015] QCAT 114
24 March 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of DC Mills Developments v Fitch involved a dispute between a builder, DC Mills Developments, and a homeowner, Peter Fitch, concerning the construction of a new dwelling. The homeowner sought relief under the Home Building Act, alleging that the builder had failed to complete the construction within a reasonable time and had not provided a final account as required. The builder, on the other hand, argued that the contract was cost-plus and thus unenforceable, and that any variations made during the construction should be taken into account when calculating the entitlement.
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the cost-plus contract was enforceable and, if not, what factors should be considered when making an award under such an unenforceable contract. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the variations made during the construction should be taken into account when calculating the entitlement, and if so, how they should be valued. The court also had to consider the appropriate hourly rate for labour when making an award under the unenforceable contract, as well as the method of calculating interest on any unpaid amounts.
The court held that the cost-plus contract was unenforceable, and that the builder was not entitled to any payment for variations that were not properly documented. The court found that the builder had charged a higher hourly rate for labour than the rate specified in the contract, and that this difference should be taken into account when making an award. The court also held that interest should be calculated at the rate of 10% per annum, payable from the due date of payment until the whole amount was paid. The court made an order for the builder to pay the homeowner the amount of $75,569.24 within 21 days, and to provide all relevant forms within the same timeframe. The court also ordered that interest be calculated at the rate of 10% per annum on any unpaid amounts. The parties were given the opportunity to make submissions in regard to costs within 14 days of the date of the order.
The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the cost-plus contract was enforceable and, if not, what factors should be considered when making an award under such an unenforceable contract. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the variations made during the construction should be taken into account when calculating the entitlement, and if so, how they should be valued. The court also had to consider the appropriate hourly rate for labour when making an award under the unenforceable contract, as well as the method of calculating interest on any unpaid amounts.
The court held that the cost-plus contract was unenforceable, and that the builder was not entitled to any payment for variations that were not properly documented. The court found that the builder had charged a higher hourly rate for labour than the rate specified in the contract, and that this difference should be taken into account when making an award. The court also held that interest should be calculated at the rate of 10% per annum, payable from the due date of payment until the whole amount was paid. The court made an order for the builder to pay the homeowner the amount of $75,569.24 within 21 days, and to provide all relevant forms within the same timeframe. The court also ordered that interest be calculated at the rate of 10% per annum on any unpaid amounts. The parties were given the opportunity to make submissions in regard to costs within 14 days of the date of the order.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Contract Formation
-
Unenforceable Contracts
-
Variations in Construction Contracts
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Cost Plus Contracts
-
Admissibility of Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Gravenall v Craig Rynne Constructions Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 66
Cases Citing This Decision
4
The Chief Executive, Office of Fair Trading, Department of Justice and Attorney General v O'Brien
[2016] QCAT 319
Gravenall v Craig Rynne Constructions Pty Ltd
[2016] QCAT 66
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
2
AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin
[1986] HCA 63
Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liq)
[2008] HCA 27