Dickson v AVPO Renovations Pty Ltd - [2025] QCAT 349

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Dickson v AVPO Renovations Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] QCAT 349

PARTIES:

LANI KARRINE DICKSON

(applicant)

v

AVPO RENOVATIONS PTY LTD

(RESPONDENT)

ACAB TILING PTY LTD

(RESPONDENT)

AVDULAH POVLAKIC

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL017-24

MATTER TYPE:

Domestic Dispute

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

1 September 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member S M Burke

ORDERS:

The Respondent, Avdulah Povlakic, trading as AVPO Renovations Pty Ltd, is to make payment to the Applicant the sum of $99,800.00 on or before 20 October 2025.

CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – where builder performed unlicensed building work – where builder did not complete the works – where defective works – where home owner entitled to recover money paid under agreement and damages to rectify and complete works – failure of party to comply with directions – failure of party to deliver any evidence before the Tribunal

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 42, s 77

Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
Cook’s Construction Pty Ltd v SFS 007.298.633 Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 75

Robinson v Harman [1848] Eng R 135

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant, Lani Dickson, is the owner of a house at 24-26 Cormorant Close, New Beith, Queensland. (“the property”).
On 22 September 2023, the Applicant entered into a written contract with the Respondent Miki Povlakic, on behalf of AVPO Renovations Pty Ltd. The contract related to main bedroom, hallway, bathroom and laundry renovation works to be carried out at the property for the contract price of $99,800.00.
It is noted that Miki Povlakic is the same person as Avdulah Povlakic, the name Miki being the name he is known by on a regular basis.
The written contract identified in detail the work to be carried out and a schedule of payments for the project including a $25,000.00 deposit and progress payments to be paid at stages of completion.
The QBCC licences identified on the written contract were Licence no. 15266242 and Licence no. 15091803.
No other details were contained in the written contract. The Applicant states that the works were to be completed within 4 weeks from commencement.
The works pertained to the following:
(a)Extensive works to the main bedroom and hallway including the removal of tiles, carpeting of floors, built-in wardrobes and medicine cabinet to be supplied, electrical power points and other electrical work including downlights, sheeting, plastering and painting, removal of internal cupboard, cavity slider from bedroom to bathroom, frame, plaster and paint architraves, recess wall for shelving and cabinets, re-frame walls and sheet walls, plaster and paint recessed area;
(b)Renovation of bathroom including removal of walls, floors, fixtures and furniture, shut off entry from hallway, build niche in shower wall, plumbing rough in and fit off…

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 Dickson v AVPO Renovations 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: [2025] QCAT 349
Decision Date: 19 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dickson v AVPO Renovations Pty Ltd involved the home owner, Dickson, seeking damages from the builder, Avdulah Povlakic trading as AVPO Renovations Pty Ltd, for unlicensed building work that was not completed satisfactorily. The dispute was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The central issue before the Tribunal was to determine the extent of the damages that Dickson was entitled to claim against Avdulah Povlakic for performing unlicensed building work, not completing the works, and delivering defective workmanship.

The Tribunal was required to decide whether Dickson was entitled to recover the money paid under the agreement, the cost to rectify and complete the works, and any additional damages for the builder's failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions and to deliver any evidence before the Tribunal. The legal issues revolved around the application of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, specifically sections 42(1) and 42(3) which prohibit unlicensed persons from performing building work and receiving any consideration for such work. The Tribunal also had to consider section 42(4) which allows for a claim for reasonable remuneration limited to the amount paid for material and labour, excluding any profit.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that while Avdulah Povlakic was prohibited from receiving any monetary consideration for performing unlicensed building work, Dickson was not precluded from claiming a reasonable remuneration for the materials and labour supplied by Avdulah Povlakic. The report by Mr Guthrie of ASBIR was accepted as identifying the unsatisfactory standard of workmanship provided by Avdulah Povlakic. The Tribunal concluded that Dickson was entitled to recover the sum of $99,800.00, which represented the cost of the contract works had they been completed by a licensed contractor. The Tribunal further directed Avdulah Povlakic to make payment to Dickson within a specified timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent, Avdulah Povlakic, trading as AVPO Renovations Pty Ltd, is to make payment to the Applicant the sum of $99,800.00 on or before 20 October 2025.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Extensions of time were granted to the Applicant by directions dated 13 January 2025 and 10 February 2025 with the final directions on 12 March 2025 accepting the amended application filed by the Applicant and entitling the Applicant to a final decision in the event of non-compliance by the Third Respondent of the Tribunal’s directions.Evidence provided by the Applicant As no material has been submitted by the Third Respondent, in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal on 12 March 2025, the Tribunal proceeds to assess the Applicant’s claim based on the material on which the Applicant relies. The Applicant’s evidence is uncontested despite the Respondents receiving all the material delivered by the Applicant to the Tribunal. I am satisfied that the report prepared by Mr Guthrie of ASBIR identifies the unsatisfactory standard of workmanship provided by the Respondenst. Unfortunately, there is no photographic evidence to support any of the claims but the report of Mr Guthrie is thorough and consistent with the complaints made by the Applicant to the Respondents during the works. In the circumstances, it is necessary for the Tribunal to assess the damages claimed by the Applicant.Damages From the outset, in assessing the damages to which the Applicant is entitled it is necessary to ensure that the Applicant is put into the same position she would have been had the contract been properly performed. The starting point therefore is that the Applicant would have incurred the sum of $99,800.00 (for the contract works) had the works been completed by a licensed contractor in a satisfactory manner in accordance with the contract. The Applicant’s claim for the refund of this amount is not warranted merely on the basis that the Respondent, with whom the Applicant entered into the written contract, was unlicensed. The statutory framework of s 42(1) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (“QBCC Act”) specifies that an unlicensed person is prohibited from either entering into a contract to perform building work or actually performing building work. Section 42(3) is said to sterilise any claim which might otherwise be made under the contract or under common law by an unlicensed builder. It provides that a person who carries out building work in contravention of s 42 is not entitled to any monetary or other consideration for doing so. The prohibition in subsection (3) is subject to subsection (4) which provides that a person is not prevented from claiming a reasonable remuneration for carrying out the building work, but only if the amount claimed is no more than the amount paid by the person in supplying material and labour for carrying out the building work and does not include an allowance for the supply of the person’s own labour and the making of a profit. Section 42(4) imposes a limitation upon the right of action at common law which it preserves against the sterilising effect of s 42(3). Without subsection (4), an unlicensed builder’s right to payment of any amount is defeated by sections 42(1) and 42(3).

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.