Habchi v Harjrudin Turcinovic

The case of Habchi v Harjrudin Turcinovic involved a dispute between the parties under a Domestic Building Contract as regulated by the Building Services Authority. Mrs Habchi, the homeowner, brought a claim against Mr Harjrudin Turcinovic, a builder, seeking compensation for various issues arising from the construction of an addition to her home. These issues included claims for interest, diminished value, encroachment costs, and variations to the contract price, alongside a counterclaim from Mr Turcinovic for the balance of the contract price, alleging that Mrs Habchi had not substantially performed the contract. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The central legal issues revolved around whether Mrs Habchi was entitled to a refund of the deposit paid to Mr Turcinovic, as well as compensation for the diminution in value of her property, costs incurred due to encroachments, and the adjustment of the contract price to account for variations. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Mr Turcinovic was entitled to the balance of the contract price, arguing that Mrs Habchi had not substantially performed the contract.

The Tribunal found that Mrs Habchi was entitled to a refund of the deposit due to the builder's failure to complete the works in accordance with the contract. However, the Tribunal also ruled that Mrs Habchi was not entitled to compensation for the diminution in value of her property or the encroachment costs, as these were not specified in the contract and the Tribunal found that the works had been substantially performed. Regarding the variations, the Tribunal determined that the contract price should be adjusted to account for these variations, and as a result, Mrs Habchi was ordered to pay the respondent the balance of the contract price, minus the variations and the deposit refund.

In summary, the Tribunal ordered that Mrs Habchi pay Mr Turcinovic the sum of $17,266.35 inclusive of GST within 21 days of the decision. The Tribunal made no order as to costs.