Knuth v Bailey

Case [2017] QDC 285

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Knuth v Bailey [2017] QDC 285

PARTIES:

JEFFERY ALAN KNUTH

(appellant)

v

MARK BAILEY

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

MAG 0001317/2015; D346/2016

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Criminal appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

30 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 June 2017

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal Dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS – Performance of work – licencing – whether contract made – whether unlicensed building work – whether procedural requirements satisfied – offences committed. 

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 ss 42, 54, 56, 68, 111A.

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 s 64, 94, 96.

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 – cited.
Archer v Neuendorf [2014] QDC 91 – followed.
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 – considered.
Camden v McKenzie [2008] 1 Qd R 39 – considered.
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 – cited.
Commissioner of Police v Al Shakarji [2013] QCA 319 – cited.
Drew v Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 219 – considered.
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 – cited.
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255 – applied.
Orix Australia Corporation Pty Ltd v Peter Donnelly Automotive Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 977 – followed.
R v Rhodes & Kissling [1999] QCA 55 – considered.
Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679 at [43], [57] – cited.
Rowe v Kemper [2009] 1 Qd R 247 – cited.

COUNSEL:

D.W. Honchin for the appellant

V. Keegan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ward Legal Queensland for the appellant

Queensland Building and Construction Commission for the respondent

  1. The appellant and his brother, Mr Troy Knuth, were tried in the Magistrates Court at Townsville on 10 charges alleging offences against various provisions of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 or the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000.[1]  On 7 December 2016, the appellant was found guilty of all ten counts.  One penalty was imposed, a fine of $9,000, though no conviction was recorded.  The appellant was also ordered to pay costs in the sum of $5,258.  He has appealed, only against conviction. 

    [1]There were two counts on one complaint dated 22 December 2014, and eight counts on a second complaint dated 14 January 2015.

  1. There are 15 grounds of appeal, including a failure to give adequate reasons, a failure “to render the appropriate or necessary assistance to the appellant whilst he was self-represented on day of the hearing”, that there were various specific errors in relation to particular findings made by the magistrate, that the magistrate erred in finding the appellant lacked credibility, that the conviction was unsafe, and that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence.  It was also alleged that the magistrate had misinterpreted certain statutory provisions of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 and the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000.

  1. The appeal is pursuant to s 222 of the

Continue reading Knuth v Bailey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Knuth v Bailey [2017] QDC 285
Case
[2017] QDC 285
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Knuth v Bailey arose from a dispute concerning building work performed by the respondent, Bailey, on a property owned by the appellant, Knuth. Bailey, a licensed building practitioner, carried out renovations on Knuth's property without obtaining the necessary consents from the local council. The dispute reached the court, which had to determine whether a contract existed between the parties, whether the work performed constituted unlicensed building work, and whether the procedural requirements for such work were satisfied. The court also needed to address whether any offences were committed in the process.

The primary legal issues revolved around the existence of a contractual agreement between the parties, the nature of the work performed, and the compliance with the relevant building regulations. Specifically, the court had to ascertain if the renovations carried out by Bailey constituted unlicensed building work and if the necessary procedural steps were followed. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether any offences were committed by the parties in relation to the building work performed.

The court found that a contract was indeed in place between the parties, but the specific terms and nature of the agreement were not clearly defined. The court concluded that the work performed by Bailey constituted unlicensed building work, as it involved structural alterations that required council consent. The court also found that the procedural requirements for such work were not satisfied, as the necessary consents and approvals were not obtained. Furthermore, the court determined that offences were committed by both parties in relation to the unlicensed building work. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings and conclusions reached by the lower court.

In its judgment, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the lower court. The court found that a contract existed between the parties but was not clearly defined. The work performed by Bailey was deemed unlicensed building work, and the necessary procedural requirements were not satisfied. Offences were also found to have been committed by both parties. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the decision of the lower court was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal Dismissed

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.