Hayes v Aramac Developments Pty Ltd - [2014] QCAT 119

CITATION:

Hayes v Aramac Developments Pty Ltd [2014] QCAT 119

PARTIES:	Mr Kip Hayes Mrs Louise Hayes (Applicants)
v
Aramac Developments Pty Ltd ABN 99 127 419 738 (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BDL006-13

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

31 May 2013

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member FitzPatrick

DELIVERED ON:

2 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The owners pay the builder the sum of $8,524.01 within 14 days of the date of this decision.

2. The builder deliver to the owners all outstanding building certificates and contract documents within 7 days of the date of this decision.

3. The owners grant the builder access to attend to rectification work, and that the builder complete that work, within 28 days of the date of this decision.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING MATTERS - Where Standard BSA Renovation - Extension and Repair Contract is still on foot - where owners resumed occupation 7 months before they were entitled to handover - where works are physically complete despite minor defects and omissions - whether the builder met its contractual obligations for reaching practical completion - where the parties are in dispute about the date for practical completion - the date of practical completion - non compliant variations - defects and omissions - the amount payable for the final completion stage and whether interest is payable by the owners - and whether the owners are entitled to offset liquidated damages - whether the builder can make a quantum meruit claim for the non compliant variations

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld) ss 18(6), 25, 67, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 92, 93

Allaro Homes Cairns Pty Ltd v O’Reilly & Anor [2012] QCA 286,
Poiner v Quirk & Anor [2007] QDC 299,
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul [1987] HCA Ballina Building Services Pty Ltd v Doyle [2010] QCAT 643
HG Windsor Pty Ltd v Waterman [2013] QCAT 618

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Mr Kip Hayes and Mrs Louise Hayes were self represented

RESPONDENT:

Aramac Developments Pty Ltd was represented by Mr Allan Cummings

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Brisbane River flooded in January 2011. Mr and Mrs Hayes’ home in Chelmer was affected. On 14 January 2012 Mr and Mrs Hayes, (the owners), entered into a standard BSA Renovation, Extension and Repair Contract with Aramac (the builder) for renovation and repair works.
The scope of work included raising the house, building in a level underneath the existing ground floor and refurbishing the existing ground floor. The contract price was $227,932.50 (including GST, and two prime cost items totalling $8,000).
Work commenced on 16 February 2012, with practical completion due by 29 June 2012[1]. The owners were out of the house for about a month. With the consent of the builder they moved back into the top level of their home at least 7 months before they were entitled to handover under the terms of the contract. They occupied the top floor level from March 2012 and received handover…

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 Hayes v Aramac Developments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hayes v Aramac Developments Pty Ltd [2014] QCAT 119
Case: [2014] QCAT 119
Decision Date: 2 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hayes v Aramac Developments Pty Ltd involved the owners, Mr and Mrs Hayes, and the builder, Aramac Developments Pty Ltd, who were in dispute over various issues relating to the renovation and extension of the Hayes’ home under a Standard BSA Renovation – Extension and Repair Contract. The Hayeses had resumed occupation of the property seven months before they were entitled to handover, despite the works being physically complete, albeit with minor defects and omissions. The central dispute was the date for practical completion, the amount payable for the final completion stage, whether interest was payable by the owners, and whether the owners could offset liquidated damages. Additionally, the builder sought a quantum meruit claim for non-compliant variations.

The primary legal issues centred on the interpretation and application of the Standard BSA Renovation – Extension and Repair Contract, as well as the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld). The court had to determine whether the builder had met its contractual obligations for reaching practical completion, the date of practical completion, and the implications of non-compliant variations, defects, and omissions. The court also needed to ascertain the amount payable for the final completion stage and whether interest was payable by the owners, as well as whether the owners were entitled to offset liquidated damages. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether the builder could make a quantum meruit claim for the non-compliant variations.

The court found that the builder had met its contractual obligations for reaching practical completion, despite the Hayeses resuming occupation early. The court ruled that the date of practical completion was the date the Hayeses resumed occupation, not the date they were entitled to handover. The Hayeses were required to pay the builder the sum of $8,524.01 within 14 days of the decision. The builder was ordered to deliver all outstanding building certificates and contract documents within 7 days of the decision. The Hayeses had to grant the builder access to attend to rectification work, which the builder had to complete within 28 days of the decision. The Hayeses could not offset liquidated damages, and the builder’s claim for a quantum meruit for non-compliant variations was dismissed.

The court ordered that the Hayeses pay the builder $8,524.01 within 14 days of the decision. The builder was to deliver all outstanding building certificates and contract documents within 7 days of the decision. The Hayeses had to grant the builder access to attend to rectification work, which the builder had to complete within 28 days of the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The owners pay the builder the sum of $8,524.01 within 14 days of the date of this decision.

2. The builder deliver to the owners all outstanding building certificates and contract documents within 7 days of the date of this decision.

3. The owners grant the builder access to attend to rectification work, and that the builder complete that work, within 28 days of the date of this decision.

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.