Harrison v Meehan

[2015] QCAT 205

CITATION: Harrison v Meehan [2015] QCAT 205

PARTIES:	Karen Harrison and Scott Harrison (Applicants)
v
Michael Meehan (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: BDL120-14

MATTER TYPE:	Building matters
HEARING DATE:	23 and 24 February 2015

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Member Howe

DELIVERED ON: 10 June 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The respondent pay to the applicants the sum of $54,740.68 within 30 days of the date of order.

2.    No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

Building matters - building contract in writing – oral terms of agreement – ascertaining terms of agreement – documents relied on to infer terms of agreement – scope of work - builder wrongly withdrawing from site – progress payments not directly related to progress of work – damages for breach of contract – expert reports based on inaccurate instructions – meaning of ‘carpentry’

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Karen Harrison and Scott Harrison
represented themselves

RESPONDENT: Mr Panayi, Solicitor, of Industry Lawyers, represented the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. The respondent is a builder.  Mr and Mrs Harrison engaged him to help construct their new home at their land at 78 Bovelles Street, Camp Hill.

2. The parties signed a master builders’ contract on 1 February 2013.  The description of works to be performed by the builder under the contract was misleading.  It described the general works to be carried out on site rather than the scope of work of the builder under the contract.  The builder’s remuneration under the written contract was $195,000.

3. The agreed scope of work of the builder was in fact much more limited.  The builder’s stated understanding of that was for him to build the timber frame of the home and supervise other trades on site engaged by the owners.   The owners understanding was that the builder would do all the carpentry work and supervise the other trades.

4. Construction commenced on 11 February 2013.  The builder was to be paid his labour weekly on tendered invoices.  In August 2013, before the builder had finished his work, the parties fell out.  The owners thought he had over claimed on the work actually performed and that the project was well behind schedule.  Words were exchanged.  The builder walked off site on 26 August 2013.  The owners engaged solicitors.  They put the builder on notice that if he did not return he would be in breach of the contract and the contract would be terminated.  The builder did not return.  The solicitors gave notice terminating the contract.

5. In turn the builder gave notice of suspension of work to the owners based on the failure of the owners to pay invoices.  He demanded the owners remedy that breach.

6. Mrs Harrison obtained an owner builder permit on 19 September 2013.  She then engaged another builder to complete work on site.  The owners brought an application against the builder seeking damages of $21,752.83 and the costs of rectification of the builder’s incomplete work of $117,708.84.

7. The builder counterclaimed $65,926 for monies due under the contract and…