Leeds v Turner t/as design2BUILD

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Leeds v Turner t/as design2BUILD [2020] QCAT 300

PARTIES:

CHRISTINE JOY LEEDS
(applicant)

v

CHRIS TURNER t/as design2BUILD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL290-19

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

5 August 2020

HEARING DATE:

3 August 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Hughes

ORDERS:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – where claim for defective or incomplete work – where lack of evidence of defective building work sufficient to establish breach of agreement, breach of duty, causation and quantum

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Clarke v Cascade Pools (Qld) Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT 323
Creek v Raine & Horne Mossman [2011] QCATA 226
Harris v Foxworth Pty Ltd [2013] QCATA 133
Rayner & Anor v Trabme Pty Ltd t/as Elders Redcliffe [2013] QCATA 212

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this Application about?

  1. Christine Leeds claims that building work performed for her by Chris Turner trading as ‘design2BUILD’ was defective and incomplete. She seeks a number of remedies, which may or may or not be within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Certainly, the Tribunal can order rectification or a refund. 

    What is the basis of the claim?

  2. For the Tribunal to order rectification or a refund, Ms Leeds would need to address a number of fundamental issues:

    (a)What was the Agreement?

    (b)What is said to be defective?

    (c)How is it defective?

    (d)What is each defect worth?

  3. Alternatively, Ms Leeds would need to claim damages in negligence based on a duty of care owed to her by Mr Turner. As this claim would be based in pure negligence, Ms Leeds would need to address other fundamental issues:

    (a)Did Mr Turner owe her a duty of care?

    (b)If so, what was the scope of the duty?

    (c)Did Mr Turner breach the duty?

    (d)Did the breach cause loss?

    Is there sufficient evidence to support the claim?

  4. The difficulty for Ms Leeds is the lack of a coherent formulation of her claim and lack of evidence to support the essential elements of her claim.

  5. The Agreement was comprised of a quote,[1] an invoice,[2] general tender specifications, inclusions and plans and a Transfer Payment Request.[3] This is also sufficient to establish that Mr Turner owed Ms Leeds a duty of care. 

    [1]Quote dated 10 April 2019.

    [2]Invoice dated 7 February 2019.

    [3]Transfer Payment Request dated 11 February 2019.

  6. However, no cogent or credible evidence of defective building work was provided to establish a breach of the Agreement or a breach of duty.[4] No evidence of causation was adduced. The only independent evidence of the standard of workmanship was a report from the Queensland Building and Construction Commission that did not identify any defective workmanship.[5] Ms Leeds provided no expert evidence of her own to refute this.

    [4]The work was completed on 1 June 2019.…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Leeds v Turner t/as design2BUILD 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
[2020] QCAT 300
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Leeds v Turner t/as design2BUILD was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Ms Leeds, the applicant, brought a claim against Mr Turner, the respondent, alleging that he breached an agreement by performing defective or incomplete building work. The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a breach of the agreement, breach of duty, causation, and quantum.

In considering these issues, the Tribunal noted that Ms Leeds' claim was poorly formulated and lacked sufficient evidence. The Tribunal found that the agreement was adequately documented, and that it was clear that Mr Turner owed Ms Leeds a duty of care. However, Ms Leeds failed to provide any cogent or credible evidence of defective building work, and there was no evidence of causation or the value of any alleged defective work. The Tribunal concluded that the claim was insufficiently supported by evidence, and could not be awarded without proof of the amount and how it was calculated.

The Tribunal dismissed the application and noted that parties must take responsibility for the preparation of their own case. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence but must act fairly and according to principles of natural justice. Ms Leeds must establish her case against Mr Turner and prove her claim to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

The final orders of the Tribunal were that the application is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Alternatively, Ms Leeds would need to claim damages in negligence based on a duty of care owed to her by Mr Turner. As this claim would be based in pure negligence, Ms Leeds would need to address other fundamental issues:(a)Did Mr Turner owe her a duty of care?(b)If so, what was the scope of the duty?(c)Did Mr Turner breach the duty?(d)Did the breach cause loss? Is there sufficient evidence to support the claim? The difficulty for Ms Leeds is the lack of a coherent formulation of her claim and lack of evidence to support the essential elements of her claim. The Agreement was comprised of a quote,[1] an invoice,[2] general tender specifications, inclusions and plans and a Transfer Payment Request.[3] This is also sufficient to establish that Mr Turner owed Ms Leeds a duty of care. [1]Quote dated 10 April 2019.[2]Invoice dated 7 February 2019.[3]Transfer Payment Request dated 11 February 2019. However, no cogent or credible evidence of defective building work was provided to establish a breach of the Agreement or a breach of duty.[4] No evidence of causation was adduced. The only independent evidence of the standard of workmanship was a report from the Queensland Building and Construction Commission that did not identify any defective workmanship.[5] Ms Leeds provided no expert evidence of her own to refute this.[4]The work was completed on 1 June 2019. Ms Leeds filed a USB Stick of photographs dated 3 May 2020. These are not contemporaneous evidence.[5]QBCC Report of Brian Bates dated 3 November 2019. Moreover, Ms Leeds provided no evidence of the value of alleged defective work. Although her application claims “at least $25,000.00”, no evidence was adduced to support the amount claimed apart from the initial invoice. The basis for the Tribunal to award $25,000.00 or more to Ms Leeds is unclear. To order it as a refund would require a total failure of consideration. To order it as a liquidated amount would require proof of that amount. To order it as unliquidated damages would require proof of loss. No cogent evidence of any of this was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot award amounts claimed without proof of the amount and how it has been calculated:In the face of poorly prepared material, the tribunal cannot make assumptions or guess at facts and events or the meaning or importance of material. The tribunal cannot make findings of facts where there is no evidence. It cannot award damages if there is no material that points to the quantum of the damage suffered. Parties must take responsibility for the preparation of their own case.[6][6]Clarke v Cascade Pools (Qld) Pty Ltd [2010] QCAT 323, [3]. The Tribunal is not satisfied there is sufficient evidence to support the claim.What are the appropriate orders? The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate.[7] However, it must also act fairly[8] and according to principles of natural justice[9] with as little formality and as much speed as matters permit.[10] Ms Leeds must establish her case against Mr Turner. She must prove her claim to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal:… “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect references… the nature of the issue necessarily affects the process by which reasonable satisfaction is attained.[11][7]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28(3)(b), (c).[8]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28(2).[9]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28(3)(a).[10]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28(3)(d).[11]Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, 346 (Dixon J).

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.