Ghama v Crew & Anor

Case [2020] QCAT 149

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Ghama v Crew & Anor [2020] QCAT 149

PARTIES:

JASON GHAMA
(applicant)

v

JENNIFER CREW

and

THE TRUSTEE FOR THE CREW FAMILY TRUST T/AS PRECISION MAINTENANCE SPECIALISTS

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL197-18

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 May 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

1.   Jennifer Crew and the Trustee for the Crew Family Trust t/as Precision Maintenance Specialists jointly and severally pay to Jason Ghama the sum of $57,834.00; and

2.   Jennifer Crew and the Trustee for the Crew Family Trust t/as Precision Maintenance Specialists jointly and severally pay to Jason Ghama costs of $338.20.      

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – DAMAGE TO LAND AND BUILDINGS – where unlicensed builder – where no signed contract – where builder did not complete works – where defective work – where Tribunal may consider informal agreement in claim for negligence – where builder had duty to take reasonable care in performing work – where purpose of damages in tort is to calculate the pecuniary sum which will make good, so far as money can do, loss suffered – where costs to rectify and complete directly attributable to builder performing work without licence, without due care and skill, not to proper standard or at all, without authorisation and supplying and using materials not fit for purpose – where consequential losses too remote or not fully substantiated – where costs limited to filing fee

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 42, s 77, Schedule 1B, Schedule 2

A L Builders Pty Ltd v Fatseas (No 2) [2014] QCATA 319

Admiralty Commissioners v SS Valeria [1922] AC 242

Barbi v Brewer [2013] QCAT 348
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge ‘Willemstad’ (1977) 136 CLR 529

Clarke v Cascade Pools (Qld) Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT 323

Faulks v New World Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] QCAT 329
Hitchman v Prime Building & Pest Consultants Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] QCAT 476

Marshall v Marshall [1991] 1 QdR 173

Robinson v Harman [1848] EngR 135
Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963) 110 CLR 74

Yongwoo Park v Betaland Pty Ltd [2017] QCAT 228

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondents:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this Application about?

  1. Jason Ghama paid $10,700.00 to Jennifer Crew and the Trustee for the Crew Family Trust t/as Precision Maintenance Specialists (PMS) for renovations on his home. Unfortunately for Mr Ghama, he did not sign a contract with PMS, who is not licensed and did not complete the work.

  2. PMS did not file a response to the claim or engage with the Tribunal process.

    What are the issues for the Tribunal to…

Continue reading Ghama v Crew & Anor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ghama v Crew & Anor [2020] QCAT 149
Case
[2020] QCAT 149
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jason Ghama sued Jennifer Crew and Precision Maintenance Specialists, trading as Precision Maintenance Specialists, for damages arising from defective building work done on his property. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issues before the court were whether the defendants were liable for negligence and whether the damages claimed by the plaintiff were recoverable.

The court examined whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, given that there was no formal contract between the parties. The court found that despite the absence of a signed contract, the defendants undertook to perform building works, thereby establishing a duty of care. The court also assessed whether the defendants' actions constituted a breach of that duty, finding that they did not complete the work to the proper standard, used materials not fit for purpose, and failed to obtain the necessary license. The court then addressed the measure and remoteness of damages, concluding that the costs to rectify and complete the work were directly attributable to the defendants' negligence. However, the court found that some of the consequential losses claimed by the plaintiff were too remote or not fully substantiated.

The court ordered Jennifer Crew and Precision Maintenance Specialists to pay Jason Ghama $57,834.00 in damages, along with costs of $338.20. This judgment underscores the importance of professional standards and legal compliance in construction work, and the necessity for builders to take reasonable care in their dealings with clients.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Jennifer Crew and the Trustee for the Crew Family Trust t/as Precision Maintenance Specialists jointly and severally pay to Jason Ghama the sum of $57,834.00; and

2. Jennifer Crew and the Trustee for the Crew Family Trust t/as Precision Maintenance Specialists jointly and severally pay to Jason Ghama costs of $338.20.

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.