Godbold v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

CITATION: Godbold v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCAT 537

PARTIES:	Grant Allan Keith Godbold Julianne Jennifer Godbold (Applicants)
v
Queensland Building and Construction Commission (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR080-13

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE: 17 March 2014

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Member Howe

DELIVERED ON: 12 August 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The decision of the Commission made 25 January 2013 assessing the applicants’ entitlement under the statutory home warranty scheme as nil is set aside.

2.    The Applicants are entitled to be paid the sum of $44,157.23 for their claim under the statutory home warranty scheme.

CATCHWORDS:

Statutory Home Warranty scheme – completion of work under the construction contract – dispute as to variations – variations not in writing – prepayment by the owner before payment due under the contract – indemnity insurance – payment for loss – delay in Commission recognition of termination – completion of the work by the owners – actual costs of completion – expert evidence – reduced value of expert evidence – assumptions of fact by expert – owners resiling from some of the contract work after termination – Commission to act reasonably in estimating owners remaining liability under the contract

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Gregory Richards, Solicitor, represented Mr and Mrs Godbold

RESPONDENT: Ms Cheriden Farthing, Solicitor, represented the Queensland Building and Construction Commission

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr and Mrs Godbold own a home at Shailer Park.  They wanted to renovate and expand.  They signed a fixed-price building contract with Mr Camilleri, a builder, on 27 July 2009.  The agreed cost was $363,446. 

2. There were eight staged progress payments under the contract not including the deposit.  The final two were for fixing and practical completion, each for $36,344.60.  There were a number of variations to the contract which increased the price.  They were not in writing.

3. Mr Camilleri found himself in financial difficulties.  He asked for more money to keep him going with the rest of the job.  The Godbolds acknowledged they owed him for variations.  On 25 February 2010 they wrote him out two cheques, each for $36,344.60, the progress payment amounts for the remaining two stages of work[1].

   [1]Exhibit 2 at [70].

4. Mr Camilleri did not finish the job.  He met Mr Godbold on 20 March 2010 and said to do that it would take another $163,523.03.  The Godbolds refused to pay that additional sum and on 27 March 2010 terminated the contract.  They made complaint to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (the Commission) and thereby claimed under the statutory home warranty scheme.  The Commission initially disallowed the claim on the basis the contract had not been properly terminated.  The Godbolds applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision and they were successful[2].  The issue of the amount of their claim was remitted to the Commission.  The Commission determined their entitlement was nil.  The Godbolds have brought this present application seeking review of that assessment.

   [2]Godbold & Anor v…