Green v SVK Group Pty Ltd

[2024] QCAT 413

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Green v SVK Group Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 413
PARTIES:	CHRISTOPHER GREEN (applicant)
v
SVK GROUP PTY LTD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	BDL313-22
MATTER TYPE:	Building matters
DELIVERED ON:	23 September 2024
HEARING DATE:	19 August 2024
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member S M Burke
ORDERS:	1.     The Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant the sum of $1,235.90 by 1 November 2024.
CATCHWORDS:	CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – OTHER MATTERS – defective building works – rectification costs
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. By application dated 24 October 2022, Christopher Green, as Applicant, sought an order from the Tribunal that SVK Group Pty Ltd, the Respondent, remedy the items of complaint lodged with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘the QBCC’) on 8 November 2021 and set out in the attached schedule headed “Alleged defective/incomplete work schedule”.

2. The allegations of defective work related to building works carried out at unit 1, 19 Xenia Street Pimpama (‘the property’). The works commenced on or about 1 October 2018 with a contract value of $78,200.00.

3. On 8 November 2021, the complaint items included the following:

   (a)Item 1 – cornice cracking in hallway outside bathroom;

   (b)Item 2 – render cracking on steps of front porch;

   (c)Item 3 – render cracking front porch;

   (d)Item 4 – front downpipe leaking;

   (e)Item 5 – cracks to tile on front porch.

4. On 6 May 2022, the QBCC issued a direction to rectify the above items to the Respondent by 10 June 2022. The Respondent failed to rectify the alleged defects by 12 July 2022 and the matter was referred to the QBCC insurance area for assessment of any entitlement under the statutory insurance scheme.

5. On 12 August 2022, the QBCC issued a decision to the Applicant disallowing the claim against the statutory insurance scheme for Items 1 to 5.

6. An internal review application of the decision dated 12 August 2022 was delivered on 3 September 2022. The review decision was delivered on 29 September 2022.

7. On review, Items 2 and 3 were considered not to be defective items and thus not covered under the statutory insurance scheme. Items 1, 4 and 5 were identified to be non-structural defective building works and thus not covered under the statutory insurance scheme.

8. The Applicant’s claim before the Tribunal relates to Items 1, 4 and 5 as follows:

   (a)Plumbing and gas – site visit for assessment and provision of quotation - $141.90

   (b)SJP Plumbing – camera and jet blocked stormwater downpipe - $418.00

   (c)Southside Specialized Tiling – replace broken tile to front porch - $300.00

   (d)TAL Render – repair of faulty render - $780.00

9. In addition, the Applicant claims $367.00 for lodgement of the application to the Tribunal and $9.00 for an ASIC company search.

10. The total claimed is $2,015.90.

11. The Respondent has not provided any response to the claims submitted by the Applicant. There is no evidence provided by the Respondent which can be considered by the Tribunal in determining the Applicant’s claim.

12. Given the material provided by the Applicant supporting the costs incurred, the Tribunal determines that the Applicant is entitled to the rectification costs incurred to remedy items 1, 4 and 5. The Tribunal has taken into account the decision of the QBCC that items 2 and 3 were not defective items.

13. In the circumstances, the Applicant is entitled to the rectification costs of  $559.90 for item 4 and $300.00 for item 5. No amount has been claimed for Item 1.

14. In addition, in its discretion and taking into account the Respondent’s failure to comply with any directions of the Tribunal, the Applicant is entitled to the costs incurred in filing the application and related out of pocket expenses in the sum of $376.00.

    Orders

15. Based on the reasons provided above, the Tribunal determines that the following orders should be made:

    (a)The Respondent is to make payment to the Applicant the sum of $859.90 by way of rectification costs for defective works;

    (b)The Respondent is to make payment to the Applicant the sum of $376.00 by way of costs incurred in making this application.