QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: Goldberg t/as Goldberg Constructions v Jogis [2019] QCAT 49 PARTIES: STEVEN GOLDBERG T/AS GOLDBERG CONSTRUCTIONS
(applicant)
v NIDHI JOGIS
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S: MCDO50766-17 (Southport) MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters DELIVERED ON: 7 March 2019 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Howe ORDERS: Application MCDO50766-17 Southport is struck out. CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – CONSTRUCTION OF PARTICULAR CONTRACTS AND IMPLIED CONDITIONS – VARIATIONS – where
the builder claimed variations under a building contract as a debt or liquidated demand in a minor civil dispute minor debt application in the tribunal – where the applicant builder had failed to comply with the statutory requirements applying to variations as at the date of contract –– where the owner brought an application to strike out or dismiss the claim – whether a building dispute can be litigated as a minor civil dispute in the tribunal
Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld) (repealed), s 9, s 80, s 82, s 84(4)
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act
1991 (Qld), s 77, Schedule 1B, Schedule 2Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 11, s 47, Schedule 3
Allaro Homes Cairns Pty Ltd v O’Reilly & Anor [2012] QCA 286
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Self-represented APPEARANCES: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
REASONS FOR DECISION
On or about 24 February 2014 the parties entered into a master builders building contract. By the contract the applicant, a builder, agreed to construct a home at the respondent’s property at Reedy Creek for a price of $431,000.
According to the respondent, practical completion occurred on 14 December 2014.
On 24 April 2017 the applicant filed an application for Minor Civil Dispute – Minor Debt in the tribunal claiming $1,400 for some of the building work done at the respondent’s property at Reedy Creek. The particulars of the building work were installation of a kitchen range hood, construction of a fence and replacement of some bathroom fittings.
The respondent filed a response to the claim disputing any money was owing the builder. The respondent maintained the claims amounted to variations to the building contract which had not been agreed.
The applicant subsequently filed an amended application for Minor Civil Dispute – Minor Debt increasing his claim to $15,315.93 for work described as variations to the building contract and now including claims for laying wooden flooring, installation of a timber ceiling instead of plasterboard, additional landscaping and additional concreting for the driveway. A builder’s margin of 20% on these variations was also added.
The applicant, Mr Goldberg, filed an affidavit sworn 6 July 2017 in which he describes all his claims as additional work performed under the contract as instructed by the respondent.1
The respondent filed an amended response to the amended claim. The respondent said the matter was a building dispute…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Goldberg t/as Goldberg Constructions v Jogis and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] QCAT 49
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether a building dispute could be pursued in a minor civil dispute proceeding in the tribunal when the builder had not complied with the statutory requirements for variations as at the date of the contract. The court had to consider whether the failure to comply with the statutory requirements barred the builder's claim and whether such a dispute could be appropriately heard in the tribunal's minor civil jurisdiction.
The court found that the statutory requirements for variations in building contracts were mandatory and not merely directory. Since the builder had not complied with these requirements, the claim for variations was invalid. Consequently, the court held that the application for a minor civil dispute was not appropriate for this kind of dispute. The court ruled that the application was an attempt to circumvent the statutory requirements and was thus not admissible. As a result, the application was struck out.
The tribunal ordered that the application MCDO50766-17 Southport be struck out, effectively dismissing the builder's claim. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in building contracts and highlighted the limitations of the minor civil dispute jurisdiction in handling such disputes.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application MCDO50766-17 Southport is struck out.
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.