Jones v Daon Projects Pty Ltd - [2023] QCAT 329

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Jones v Daon Projects Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 329

PARTIES:

KEVEN JONES
CARMEN JONES

(applicant)

v

DAON PROJECTS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL154-21

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2023

HEARING DATE:

24 July 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member King-Scott

ORDERS:

1.     The Tribunal determines as a preliminary issue that the Contract dated 18 July 2020 was lawfully terminated by the Applicants either:

(a)     By Notice of Termination issued on 21 October 2021 or, alternatively

(b)     At common law.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – GENERALLY – whether a building contract properly terminated – grounds for termination – Notice to Remedy Breach one day short of 10 days - whether reasonable time –– unreasonable delay in progressing the build – termination at common law

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1999 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Allen & Taylor v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 63

Kelly v Desnoe [1985] 2 Qd R 477

Schofield v QBCC & Anor[2019] QCAT 73
Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620.

Stickney v Keeble [1915] AC 386

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self represented

Respondent:

T N Walker Solicitor

REASONS FOR DECISION

I am asked to determine this matter as a preliminary issue whether a building contract was lawfully terminated and, if so, by whom?

Introduction

The Applicants I will hereafter refer to as “the Owners” wished to make additions to their existing home in Caloundra by adding 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and a carport. The purpose of the extensions was to accommodate the Owners’ elderly parents.
I will refer to the Respondent as “Daon Projects”. Its sole director was Jin Bong Choi known as Harry Choi. Mr Choi and the Owners were acquaintances before entering into the Contract.
The material filed by the Owners is difficult to understand and contains much irrelevant and indecipherable material. The Owners were represented by Mr Jones. Although, I am sure that the Owners made every attempt to place before me all material in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal, the manner in which they have done so, by reducing the size of large documents to fit within the page, rendered many documents to be only decipherable by a magnifying glass! Multiple documents have also been fitted into one page again making it difficult to decipher them. Consequently, marshalling all the facts of this case has been extremely tedious and time consuming.
The exercise was compounded by Mr Choi’s difficulty with English.
Neither party wished to advance their case by cross-examining their opponent in any detail but were content to rely upon the written material. In those circumstances, and doing the best I can, I have reached a decision for the following reasons.

Background to the dispute

Mr Jones says he engaged architects to prepare plans and specifications for the home additions. They asked Mr Choi to provide a quote…

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 Jones v Daon Projects Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jones v Daon Projects Pty Ltd [2023] QCAT 329
Case: [2023] QCAT 329
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jones v Daon Projects Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the applicants, Keven and Carmen Jones, and the respondent, Daon Projects Pty Ltd, regarding a building contract for home extensions. The primary issue before the court was whether the building contract was lawfully terminated by the applicants either through a Notice of Termination issued on 21 October 2021 or at common law. The applicants alleged substantial breaches of contract by Daon Projects, including failure to provide a commencement notice, delays in work progress, and non-compliance with variation requirements. Daon Projects, on the other hand, argued that the notice was defective due to a public holiday and that the applicants were also in breach by interfering with the works. The court found that Daon Projects had indeed breached the contract in multiple ways, including failing to provide necessary documentation, not issuing a commencement notice, and demanding payment for incomplete work stages. The court also determined that despite the defect in the notice due to the public holiday, Daon Projects would not have remedied the breaches even if given proper notice. Additionally, the court concluded that Daon Projects' conduct demonstrated an intention not to be bound by the contractual obligations, allowing the applicants to terminate the contract at common law.

The court's decision concluded that the contract was lawfully terminated by the applicants either through the Notice of Termination or at common law due to Daon Projects' substantial breaches and repudiation of the contract. This decision provides clarity on the circumstances under which a building contract can be lawfully terminated and the remedies available to the aggrieved party.

Orders