Halliday v Geason - [2014] QCAT 31

CITATION:

Halliday v Geason [2014] QCAT 31

PARTIES:	Jeffrey Halliday (Applicant)
v
Dean Geason (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BDL137-13

MATTER TYPE:

Building Matters

HEARING DATE:

22 January 2014

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

DELIVERED ON:

23 January 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Dean Geason pays to Jeffrey Halliday the sum of $120,000.00 forthwith; and

2. Dean Geason pays to Jeffrey Halliday costs of $275.00 forthwith.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING DISPUTE – assessment of damages - jurisdiction – oral contract - negligence – reckless destruction – economic loss – measure of loss - costs to rectify – no additional entitlement to refund – remoteness – loss of rent – interest – costs

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 ss 8, 30
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 s 77, Schedule 2

Barbi v Brewer [2013] QCAT 348
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609
Clarke v Cascade Pools (Qld) Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT 323
North v Paul Bongioletti Homes Pty Ltd and Pershouse [2011] QCAT 134
Robinson v Harman [1848] EngR 135
San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (1986) 162 CLR 340
Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963) 110 CLR 74
Williamson & Williamson v McErlean t/a P & D Patios [2013] QCAT 272

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This application was determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this Application about?

Home owners who enter into oral or informal agreements with unlicensed builders do so at their peril. Jeffrey Halliday did this and suffered loss. He now wants the Tribunal to assess his damages.
On 16 January 2013, Mr Halliday entered into an oral contract with Dean Geason to perform building works at 157 Golden Four Drive, Bilinga, Queensland. The work commenced on 17 January 2013 and was to be completed on 7 April 2013.
Mr Geason was unlicensed. He did not perform the work properly. He caused substantial damage to the property. On 7 April 2013, Mr Halliday ordered Mr Geason to cease work immediately. The work remains incomplete.
The Tribunal has granted Mr Halliday’s application for a decision in default of Mr Geason filing a response and has directed quantum to be determined.[1]
[1]QCAT Practice Direction No. 9 of 2010.

What is the Tribunal’s jurisdiction?

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a building dispute.[2] This includes a domestic building dispute.[3] A domestic building dispute relevantly includes a claim or dispute for reviewable domestic work or a contract for the performance of reviewable domestic work or in negligence or trespass related to the performance of reviewable domestic work.[4]
[2]Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, s 77.
[3]Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, Schedule 2 definition of ‘building dispute’.
[4]Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, Schedule 2 definition of ‘domestic building dispute’.
‘Reviewable domestic work’ means domestic building work under the Domestic Building…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Halliday v Geason

Details

AGLC: Halliday v Geason [2014] QCAT 31
Case: [2014] QCAT 31
Decision Date: 23 January 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Halliday v Geason involved Jeffrey Halliday, the plaintiff, suing Dean Geason, the defendant, for damages resulting from a building dispute. Halliday alleged that Geason, through reckless actions, caused significant damage to Halliday’s property, leading to economic loss. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues, including the nature and extent of the damages recoverable by Halliday. This involved assessing whether the loss was due to the defendant’s negligence and whether the damages were reasonably foreseeable. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Halliday was entitled to additional costs beyond those necessary to rectify the damage, and whether he could claim a refund of the purchase price. The issue of remoteness of damage, particularly regarding the loss of rental income and interest on the damages, was also addressed.

In its reasoning, the court found that Halliday was entitled to compensation for the costs incurred to rectify the damage caused by Geason's actions. The court held that Halliday could not claim a refund of the purchase price of the property as this was not an additional recoverable loss. The court also considered the loss of rent and the interest on damages, ruling that these were recoverable but only to the extent that they were a direct consequence of the negligent actions. The court calculated the total amount owed by Geason to Halliday, which included the costs to rectify the damage and the interest thereon, but excluded any additional claims not directly linked to the damage caused.

The final orders required Geason to pay Halliday the sum of $120,000.00, which represented the costs to rectify the damage, plus $275.00 in costs. This ruling effectively concluded the dispute by providing Halliday with compensation for the direct economic losses resulting from Geason's actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Dean Geason pays to Jeffrey Halliday the sum of $120,000.00 forthwith; and

2. Dean Geason pays to Jeffrey Halliday costs of $275.00 forthwith.

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.