Knorring v Baldwin - [2016] QCAT 143

CITATION:

Knorring v Baldwin [2016] QCAT 143

PARTIES:	Peter Von Knorring (Applicant/Appellant)
v
David Alfred Baldwin (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BDL297-13

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2015

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Steven Holzberger

DELIVERED ON:

18 January 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. That Mr Von Knorring pay to Mr Baldwin the sum of $6,976.00.

2. That Mr Baldwin deliver to Mr Von Knorring:

a. all keys he holds in relation to Mr Von Knorring’s property; and

b. all certificates relating to building works carried out by him on Mr Von Knorring’s property.

CATCHWORDS:

DOMESTIC BUILDING DISPUTE – omissions to the building works – whether the builder was entitled to recover – additional amounts of variations – whether the owner had validly withdrawn from the contract – whether the builder had validly terminated the contract.

Domestic Building Contract Act 2000 (Qld), s 84, s 27, s 36, s 39, s 64, s 65, s 75

Thompson Residential Pty Ltd v Tran & Anor [2014] QDC 156

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	in person
RESPONDENT:	In person

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Mr Von Knorring sought a quotation from Mr Baldwin for the carrying out of renovations to his property at Pallarenda.
On 27 February 2013 Mr Baldwin provided that quotation and at a meeting at Mr Baldwin’s home a contract or rather a schedule for a contract was executed by both parties.
Construction commenced on 11 March 2013 and on 11 October 2013 Mr Baldwin advised that practical completion had been reached and demanded payment of the balance of moneys he claimed were owing.
Mr Von Knorring did not accept that the works had reached practical completion and by letter dated 24 October 2013 purported to withdraw from the contract. Mr Baldwin in turn purported to terminate the contract in writing on 31 October 2013.
On 29 November 2013 Mr Von Knorring applied to the Tribunal to offset certain defects and omissions against balancing the balance of the contract price. His claim was calculated as follows:
Contract price:   $178,540.00
Less payments made:  $160,000.00
Subtotal:  $ 18,540.00
Less damages for defects and omissions:  $ 11,858.00
TOTAL:  $ 6,682.00
On 2 January 2014 Mr Baldwin filed a response seeking orders for the final payment under the contract to be made and further payment for variations to the contract works. His claim can be particularised as follows:
Contract price:   $178,540.00
Less payments received:  $160,000.00
Subtotal:  $ 18,540.00
Less allowance for omission of rendering work:              $ 2,000.00
Subtotal:  $ 16,540.00
Plus variations:  $ 17,979.20
TOTAL:  $ 34,514.20
Mr Baldwin also sought interest at the rate of 5% and claimed in the alternate for “unjust enrichment”.
The matter was heard on 24 August and a decision delivered on 4 September 2014. Both parties appealed that decision.
The Appeal Tribunal published its decision on 14 July 2015. It allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a differently constituted tribunal for determination.

Amendment of claims

In his further statement of evidence…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Knorring v Baldwin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] QCAT 143
Decision Date: 18 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case of Knorring v Baldwin were Von Knorring, the owner of a property, and Baldwin, the builder. The dispute centred around omissions in the building works, the builder's right to recover additional amounts for variations, the owner's withdrawal from the contract, and the builder's termination of the contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether Baldwin was entitled to recover additional amounts for variations, whether Von Knorring had validly withdrawn from the contract, and whether Baldwin had validly terminated the contract. The court had to consider the terms of the contract between the parties, the nature of the omissions, and the effect of the owner's purported withdrawal on the contract.

The court found that Baldwin was entitled to recover additional amounts for variations, as these were within the scope of the contract and had been agreed to by Von Knorring. The court also found that Von Knorring's purported withdrawal from the contract was ineffective, as it did not comply with the terms of the contract. The court further found that Baldwin had validly terminated the contract, as Von Knorring had breached the contract by failing to pay for the work done and by purporting to withdraw from the contract.

The orders made by the court were that Von Knorring pay Baldwin the sum of $6,976.00, and that Baldwin deliver to Von Knorring all keys and certificates relating to the building works carried out on his property. The court did not grant any other relief to either party.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That Mr Von Knorring pay to Mr Baldwin the sum of $6,976.00.

2. That Mr Baldwin deliver to Mr Von Knorring:

a. all keys he holds in relation to Mr Von Knorring’s property; and

b. all certificates relating to building works carried out by him on Mr Von Knorring’s property.

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.