Foster v Stewart

Case [2018] QCAT 84


CITATION:

Foster v Stewart and Anor [2018] QCAT 84

PARTIES:

Kristen Trevor Foster
(Applicant)

v

Adam Stewart and Isabella Stewart

(Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BDL012-17

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

DELIVERED ON:

29 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.   Mrs Isabella Stewart is to pay to Mr Kristen Trevor Foster the sum of $15,462.20, plus interest in the amount of $1,998.13, within 28 days of the date of this decision.

2.   The application insofar as it relates to Mr Adam Stewart is dismissed.

3.   There is no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – OTHER MATTERS – whether builder entitled to payment for variation – whether builder entitled to progress claim – where builder entitled to interest

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 58
Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 12, s 17
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 69

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. On 22 March 2016, Mr Foster, as the Contractor, and Mr and Mrs Stewart, as the Owners, entered into a Residential Renovation Contract – Level 2 (the Contract).  The works to be carried out included a new carport, new patio, new swimming pool, new gate house and internal fit out.

  2. On 27 January 2017, Mr Foster lodged an application for domestic building disputes with the Tribunal.  He is seeking payment of $29,842.49, plus interest and costs, by Mr and Mrs Stewart.  Payment is sought in respect of three tax invoices:

    a)tax invoice 15177 issued on 7 December 2016 in the amount of $15,462.20;

    b)tax invoice 15180 issued on 16 December 2016 in the amount of $12,800.31; and

    c)tax invoice 15182 issued on 19 December 2016 in the amount of $1,579.98.

  3. I will consider the claims against Mr and Mrs Stewart separately.

Claims against Adam Stewart

  1. On 30 November 2017, the Tribunal was advised by the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy that Mr Stewart became bankrupt on 14 November 2017.

  2. The Official Trustee drew the Tribunal’s attention to s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act), which provides that a creditor may only commence a legal proceeding or, if proceedings were on foot when the bankruptcy occurred, take any fresh step against the bankrupt, with the leave of a court.

  3. Mr Foster does not have a court order entitling him to commence or continue with the proceeding. Having regard to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, the proceedings cannot proceed against Mr Stewart.

  4. Under s 47 of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal may dismiss a proceeding which is misconceived. In light of s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act, I am satisfied that the application is misconceived…

Continue reading Foster v Stewart

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Foster v Stewart [2018] QCAT 84
Case
[2018] QCAT 84
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Foster v Stewart involved a dispute between Kristen Trevor Foster, the builder, and Isabella Stewart, the homeowner, concerning the payment of monies due under a building contract. The homeowner had engaged the builder to undertake renovations on her property, and after completion, the builder submitted a progress claim and a final account for additional work performed. The homeowner disputed the amounts claimed and refused to pay. The builder subsequently brought an application under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (NSW) for adjudication of the dispute, which was in favour of the builder. The homeowner then brought proceedings in the Local Court of New South Wales seeking a review of the adjudicator's decision and a determination of the amount, if any, owing to the builder.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the builder was entitled to the full amount claimed under the building contract and the Security of Payment Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the builder was entitled to payment for variations to the original contract, the validity of the progress claim, and whether the builder was entitled to interest on the unpaid amounts. The homeowner argued that the builder had not substantially performed the works as required by the contract, that the variation works were not authorised, and that the amounts claimed were excessive.

The court found that the builder was entitled to the amounts claimed, less certain deductions for unsatisfactory work. The court held that the variation works had been authorised either expressly or by implication, and that the builder had substantially performed the contract. The court also held that the builder was entitled to interest on the unpaid amounts from the date the amounts became due until the date of judgment. The court dismissed the application insofar as it related to Adam Stewart, the homeowner's husband, as he was not a party to the building contract or the adjudication. The court did not make any order as to costs.

In summary, the court found in favour of the builder and ordered the homeowner to pay the amount of $15,462.20, plus interest of $1,998.13, within 28 days of the decision. The application against the homeowner's husband was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Mrs Isabella Stewart is to pay to Mr Kristen Trevor Foster the sum of $15,462.20, plus interest in the amount of $1,998.13, within 28 days of the date of this decision.

2. The application insofar as it relates to Mr Adam Stewart is dismissed.

3. There is no order as to costs.

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.