QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Dodd & Anor v Croft [2025] QCAT 418
PARTIES:
MEAGHAN DODD (applicant)
COURTNEY BOLTON
(applicant)
v
BENJAMIN JOEL CROFT
(RESPONDENT)
APPLICATION NO/S:
BDL395-24
MATTER TYPE:
Domestic Dispute
DELIVERED ON:
27 October 2025
HEARING DATE:
12 September 2025
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member S M Burke
ORDERS:
The Respondent is to make payment to the Applicant the sum of $32,109.00 on or before 11 December 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 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
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 Applicants, Meaghan Dodd and Courtney Bolton, are the owners of adjoining properties at 15 Lynd Road, Maclean and 13 Lynd Road, Maclean, Queensland respectively (“the adjoining properties”).
The Respondent is a landscaping contractor trading under the registered name, Neighbours Envy Landscaping Services.
On 6 February 2022, Ms Dodd entered into an agreement with the Respondent , partly oral and partly in writing with an amendment to that agreement being entered into between the parties on 4 May 2022.
The scope of works is set out in an email dated 2 February 2022 and relates to fencing work to a proposed dwelling to be built on the property. The email dated 2 February 2022 from Ms Dodd to the Respondent provides a plan detailing the measurements and location of the fencing and retaining walls to form the scope of works under the agreement.
The terms of the agreement included the following scope of works (“contract works”):
(a)The Respondent was to provide the following:-
(i) Two 27.4 metre retaining walls using steel galvanised posts with CCA approved 2.4 metre treated pine sleepers.
(ii) All labour and materials included; with
(iii) walls to be 4 sleepers high and last panel stepped down to 3 metres high;
(iv) included geo fabric with ag pipe and gravel for drainage;
(v) use of bobcat and labour required to scrap boundary line for retaining wall installation at 13 Lynd Road;
(vi) supply and install standard timber fencing with all labour and materials included;
(vii) fence brackets to be supplied and welded to retaining walls to mount the fence on top;
(viii) 52.8 metres fence length total for left and right boundary line;
(ix) Supply and install standard pedestrian gate at 15 Lynd Road;
(x) Supply and install sleepers and fence on rear boundary line at 15 Lynd Road;
(xi) 3.5…
Continue reading Dodd v Croft
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Dodd v Croft [2025] QCAT 418
- Case
- [2025] QCAT 418
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Tribunal were the extent of the damages owed by the builder to the homeowner, and whether the homeowner had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate her claim. The Tribunal needed to determine whether the builder's failure to comply with the Direction to Rectify and Complete, issued by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission, and his failure to provide any evidence to the Tribunal justified the homeowner's claim for the full amount sought.
The Tribunal found that the builder had not fulfilled his contractual obligations, including performing unlicensed work and failing to complete the works to the agreed standard. The evidence from the QBCC inspectors' reports confirmed the presence of defective work, which was not compliant with the National Construction Code. The builder's non-compliance with the Direction to Rectify and Complete further supported the homeowner's case. As the builder did not provide any evidence to contest the homeowner's claim, the Tribunal accepted the homeowner's evidence as uncontested and awarded her the full amount of $32,109.00 for the costs of rectification and completion of the works.
In summary, the Tribunal ordered the builder to pay the homeowner $32,109.00 by a specified date, reflecting the costs to rectify and complete the defective building work.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Respondent is to make payment to the Applicant the sum of $32,109.00 on or before 11 December 2025.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.