Dodd v Croft

Case [2025] QCAT 418


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

  1. 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”).

  2. The Respondent is a landscaping contractor trading under the registered name, Neighbours Envy Landscaping Services.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

Details
AGLC
Dodd v Croft [2025] QCAT 418
Case
[2025] QCAT 418
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dodd v Croft was a case heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, involving a dispute between a homeowner, Ms Dodd, and a builder, Mr Croft, regarding the completion of unlicensed building work and the quality of the work performed. The dispute centred on the assessment of damages for breach of contract, specifically the costs to rectify and complete the works, following the builder's failure to finish the works and the presence of defective construction.

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

The Applicants filed the required statements and supporting documentation by 4 April 2025. No material was provided by the Respondent.Evidence provided by the Applicant As no material has been submitted by the Respondent, in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal on 6 February 2025, the Tribunal proceeds to assess the Applicant’s claim based on the material on which the Applicant relies. The Applicants’ evidence is uncontested despite the Respondent receiving all the material delivered by the Applicant to the Tribunal. On 16 January 2024, a Queensland Building and Construction Commission (“QBCC”) building inspector, Mr Colin Rendall inspected the property at 13 Lynd Road, Maclean at the request of Ms Courtney Bolton. A report dated 19 January 2024 (“the QBCC 13 Lynd Road report”) was provided by Mr Rendall outlining the item of complaint being the alleged defective work. On 13 August 2024, Mr Rendall inspected the property at 15 Lynd Road, Maclean at the request of Ms Dodd. A report dated 16 August 2024 (“the QBCC 15 Lynd Road report”) was provided by Mr Rendall outlining the items of defective work addressing the complaints submitted by Ms Dodd. It is noted that the reports state that payments had been made by the Applicants in the amount of $13,683.00 (with the contract sum being $13,683.00) for the 15 Lynd Road property and $5,650.00 (with the contract price being $5,650.00) for the 13 Lynd Road property. This is not consistent with Ms Dodd’s statement but it is not relevant for the purpose of the dispute and the claim before the Tribunal. In relation to Ms Bolton’s complaint, one complaint was submitted regarding the 13 Lynd Road property relating to the boundary fence between 13 Lynd Road and 15 Lynd Road, namely, that the boundary fencing is bowing at multiple points along the fence length and that when pushed the fence would give considerably. The fence was considered no longer safe. Mr Rendall concluded in the 13 Lynd Road report that the contractor had not constructed the fence in compliance with the minimum requirements of the National Construction Code (“NCC”), technical sheet 20 for Timber Queensland and there was no corrosion protected welds to the fence support brackets. The QBCC made the following finding:(a)QBCC finds the contractor responsible for the construction of the fence to comply with the minimum requirements of the NCC, technical data sheet 20 by Timber Queensland, AS 3660 1-2-14 Termite management and has not corrosion protected the welds to the fence support brackets which has reduced the structural adequacy and is unsatisfactory. A Direction to Rectify and/or Complete No. 011813 was issued to the Respondent on 23 January 2024 with an attached defective work list addressing the complaint submitted by Ms Bolton. On 28 February 2024, the QBCC advised Ms Bolton that the Respondent had not complied with the Direction to Rectify No. 011813 and that the QBCC was unable to assist any further with her complaint.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.