Lida Build Pty Ltd v Miller
[2014] QCAT 129
| CITATION: | Lida Build Pty Ltd v Miller [2014] QCAT 129 |
| PARTIES: | Lida Build Pty Ltd (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Peter Miller and Susan Miller (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | BD314-09 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Building matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 20 March 2014 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Cotterell |
| DELIVERED ON: | 7 April 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Peter Miller and Susan Miller shall pay Lida Build Pty Ltd the sum of $31,238.98. 2. Peter Miller and Susan Miller shall pay Lida Build Pty Ltd interest on the sum of $31,238.98 at the rate of 14.98 per cent payable from the date of this Order until and including the day the amount is paid. 3. Lida Build Pty Ltd shall allow Peter Miller and Susan Miller a deduction from the amount to be paid to it for interest on the sum of $4,450.00 at the rate of 14.98 per cent payable from the date of this Order until and including the day the amount is paid. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Damages – where specific issues referred back to the Tribunal for further consideration – where building work not defective but did not comply with the contract – where failure to follow the plans – whether a failure to comply with the plans would result in damages for the cost to comply or in diminution in value – whether unreasonable to incur the cost to comply with plans – whether diminution in value is the proper method of calculating loss Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 146 Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr Miller represented Mr and Mrs Miller |
| RESPONDENT: | Lida Build Pty Ltd was represented by Ms McNeil of Counsel |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Lida Build Pty Ltd (Lida Build) and the Peter and Susan Miller (the Millers) have been in disputation about issues arising from building work carried out by Lida Build at the Millers residence since 2009. The building work involved the construction of a pool house for an initial contract price of $104,500.00 plus materials supplied by the Millers. Lida Build originally commenced a proceeding in the Tribunal claiming payment for the balance of money owed under the building contract. The Millers, in response, counter claimed for defective building work and late completion damages.
This Tribunal delivered a decision on 6 September 2010, which was appealed by both parties. The decision was partly set aside and returned to the Tribunal by the Appeals Tribunal on 9 August 2011. This Tribunal then delivered another decision on 30 March 2012, which was again appealed by both parties, and on 30 April 2013 the decision of the Appeals Tribunal referred to below was made. The Millers then appealed to the Court of Appeal but their appeal was dismissed (with costs).
The matter came back to this Tribunal on the basis of the Appeal Tribunal’s decision of 30 April 2013 which involved the following decisions and Orders:
1.On the appeal of Lida Build Pty Ltd the appeal is allowed in part.
2.The decision of the Tribunal made on 26 March 2012 is set aside.
3.The respondent must pay to the applicant $25,795.78 by 30 May 2013.
4.The decision of the Tribunal in regard to the roof pitch claim for rectification in the amount of $37,638.98 is set aside.
5.The Tribunal is directed to determine, in accordance with this decision that because the contract required the roof pitch of the pool house to match the roof pitch of the existing house whether damages should be awarded on the Millers counterclaim to be assessed on the basis of the cost to rectify the pitch to 25° or whether damages be assessed by way of diminution in value, and if so what amount.
6.That in considering the question in direction 5 the Tribunal must give consideration to any amount to be allowed for rectification of the fascia
7.On the appeal of Susan Miller and Peter Miller the appeal is dismissed.
At the hearing on 20 March, the Tribunal was informed that the Millers had paid Lida Build the sum of $25,795.78.
This Tribunal has limited jurisdiction in the matter as all other issues have been determined at previous hearings and either were not appealed or have been upheld on appeal. It has to determine the issues raised in paragraph 5 and 6 of the Orders of 30 April 2013.
THE RELEVANT FACTS
It is not now in dispute, that the roof pitch of the existing house is 25 degrees and the roof pitch of the pool house is 29 to 30 degrees.
It was previously determined by this Tribunal that the contract required the roof pitch of the pool house to match the roof pitch of the existing house. This was based not on specific wording but derived from the wall height (pitching height) and soffit width (overhang) shown on the Mondo Architects Plans of 17.01.08 W-1001 and W-5001.
It was also determined by this Tribunal on 26 March 2012 that: “… the eaves and over-hang do not comply with the contract”.
At the hearing on 20 March 2014, Mr Jover stated that the soffit on the pool side of the pool house was approximately 650mm instead of 790mm which was required by the plans (See Mondo Architects Plan of 17.01.08 W-1001 and W-5001) and apparently achieved on the backside of the pool house. 790mm allowed the games room doors to remain under the soffit when opened. These two doors in fact extend beyond the fascia but are covered by the gutter.
The fascia height is required by the Deem to Satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia Volume 2, Part 3.8.2.2 to be 2000mm. The BSA Inspector measured the height at the Pump Room on 1 April 2010 at 1970mm and at the Games Room at 2030mm. BSA stated that the height at the Pump Room was defective. The Appeals Tribunal accepted Lida Build’s evidence in regard to the costs of this rectification work and awarded the Millers an amount of $1,950 subject to the roof pitch issue being determined.
THE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING ON 20 MARCH 2014
At the hearing on 20 March 2014, it was stated that no work had been done on any roof rectification by the Millers.
Mr Messingham of Action Property Solutions provided a valuation which he stated was “highly reliant on subjective opinion”. Specifically with regard to the roof he said:
…The visual variation between buildings is probably not noticeable to a casual observer, though it has considerable repercussions.
The roof hip to fascia join in the north-west corner has been modified, joined in a fashion, resulting in an appearance that is quite clearly different to the existing house.
In our opinion it has the appearance of afterthought modification to remedy a mistake. It is inconsistent with the existing dwelling and clearly not of the same high standard
The fascia along the northern elevation facing the pool is lower than designed and the overhang (eave) is narrower than designed, which again is clearly inconsistent with the existing dwelling.
This reduces the effective shading of the northern elevation facing the pool, reducing the useable size of the alfresco area, and exposing the timber panelling, windows and doors to increased weathering.
The tops of the timber doors accessing the games room have been trimmed so that they can clear the fascia when opened. Moreover, these doors protrude beyond the facia. The end result is clearly not high quality construction.
The fascia along the southern elevation facing the road is lower than designed and the overhang (eave) is narrower than designed, resulting in only a partial cover of the concrete apron below
Again, there is an obvious appearance of a mismatch between the roof and the structure below.
Mr Messingham arrived at a loss due to a diminution in value of $62,500 of which $52,500 is said to be attributed to:
The pool house as constructed does not match this standard (high value/high quality) and is only partially functional, let alone a clearly apparent project that has “gone wrong”.
In contrast to Mr Messingham, Mr Pullos of Planet Valuation Services reported on whether there was any diminution in value as a result of the pool house roof pitch not matching the roof pitch of the existing house. He stated that the roof pitch (difference) would be imperceptible to the naked eye and highly unlikely to be noticed by purchasers. He concluded “Overall we do not consider the difference in roof pitch to have caused any diminution in market value”.
Neither Mr Messingham nor Mr Pullos was required for cross-examination.
The Millers listed the property for sale in November 2013 for $2.5 million which is at the top of Mr Messingham’s valuation.
The Millers’ sons-in-law had previously provided quotes to rectify the pool house roof pitch, which totalled $37,638.98, and because they were the only estimates of cost for this work available this sum was used, somewhat reluctantly, by this Tribunal in its decision of 30 March 2012.
Lida Build had not provided a cost estimate because it did not consider it should have to carry out this work, but the Appeals Tribunal determined that this Tribunal, as a matter of procedural fairness, should have made the legal consequences clear and allowed Lida Build the opportunity to provide this evidence. In referring this matter back to the Tribunal the Appeals Tribunal provided for Lida Build to submit evidence on the cost of rectification.
Lida Build filed a quotation dated 18 December 2013 from Troy Knight of Marvillaknight Constructions in the sum of $24,500 and a another quotation dated 19 December 2013 from Jason Thistlethwait of JDT Builders in the sum of $23,650.
Although not specifically authorised to do so the Millers also filed new quotes from their two sons-in-law. The quote dated 18 February 2014 from Barrai Moran of MCD Carpentry was for a total of $22,601.70 and the undated quote from Simon Deroode of Roode Roofing was for $11,590.44.
On 20 March 2014, Mr Moran was on his way to the United Kingdom and not available for cross-examination. Mr Deroode in cross-examination conceded that he had duplicated an amount of $783.34, which reduced his quote to $10,807.10. This resulted in a total cost of $33,408.80 as opposed to their previous quotes of $37,638.98.
In relation to the JDT Builders quote, the Millers submitted that they
consider this to be a realistic alternative to the complete reconstruction of the roof, … subject to the proviso:
A that new materials are provided in visual areas, particularly in the roofing material and the T&G ceiling and exposed beams
B they also would require painting of altered areas where required; and finally
C that such corrections are approved by the BSA.
For the reason set-out above, the Tribunal ensured that Mr Miller was able to cross-examine Mr Thistlethwait. In so doing, Mr Miller questioned whether or not JTD intended to undertake the 10 items listed in the proposal by Barrai Moran of MCD Carpentry and was assured that JDT was able and prepared to do this work for the price quoted. Mr Thistlethwait also assured Mr Miller that he would comply with the proviso items A and B referred to above.
From the quote by Marvillaknight it is clear that the pitching height (top of top plate/beam) above the slab is 2450mm as detailed in the Mondo Architects Plan.
From JDT’s quote it is clear that the change in roof pitch to 25 degrees will increase the fascia height by approximately 55mm and will lower the existing apex of the roof by approximately 140mm.
THE LAW
As stated by the Appeals Tribunal:
The general rule for assessing damages for building work that is not in conformance with the contract is that a building owner is entitled to the difference between the contract price of the work and the cost of making the work conform to the contract.[1] That is what the learned Member did here. There is of course a qualification to the general rule that not only must the work undertaken be necessary to produce conformity, but that also, it must be a reasonable course to adopt.[2]
[1]Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 at 617.
[2]Ibid.
In Bellgrove v Eldridge, Dixon CJ, Webb and Taylor JJ said:
In the present case, the respondent was entitled to have a building erected upon her land in accordance with the contract and the plans and specifications which formed part of it, and her damage is the loss which she has sustained by the failure of the appellant to perform his obligation to her. This loss cannot be measured by comparing the value of the building which has been erected with the value it would have borne if erected in accordance with the contract; her loss can, prima facie, be measured only by ascertaining the amount required to rectify the defects complained of and so give to her the equivalent of a building on her land which is substantially in accordance with the contract.
The principle to be derived from Bellgrove v Eldridge[3] is that in the case of a building contract such as the present the prima facie measure of damages is the ‘amount required to rectify the defects complained of and so give to [the plaintiff] the equivalent of a building on [his or her] land which is substantially in accordance with the contract’[4] (Tribunal highlighting).
[3][1954] HCA 36; (1954) 90 CLR 613.
[4]at 617 per Dixon CJ, Webb and Taylor JJ.
In Bellgrove v Eldridge the High Court pointed out that there was a qualification to the rule it stated in regard to damages recoverable by a building owner for the breach of a building contract.
The qualification ... is that, not only must the work undertaken be necessary to produce conformity, but that also, it must be a reasonable course to adopt.
The example which the Court gave of unreasonableness was the following:
No one would doubt that where pursuant to a building contract calling for the erection of a house with cement rendered external walls of second-hand bricks, the builder has constructed the walls of new bricks of first quality the owner would not be entitled to the cost of demolishing the walls and re-erecting them in second-hand bricks.
Bellgrove v Eldridge was considered by a five member bench of the High Court who delivered a joint decision in Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd[5]. The Court stated:
The “ruling principle”, confirmed in this Court on numerous occasions, with respect to damages at common law for breach of contract is that stated by Parke B in Robinson v Harman:
“The rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been “performed”.”
[5][2009] HCA 8 (12 February 2009).
The Court in Tabcorp said in relation to the Bellgrove v Eldridge reasonable qualification:
That tends to indicate that the test of “unreasonableness” is only to be satisfied by fairly exceptional circumstances. The example given by the Court aligns closely with what Oliver J said in Radford v De Froberville[6], that is, that the diminution in value measure of damages will only apply where the innocent party is “merely using a technical breach to secure an uncovenanted profit”.
[6][1977] 1 WLR 1262 at 1273; [1978] 1 All ER 33 at 44.
In The Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd[7] Mason CJ and Dawson J said at 80 -
The award of damages for breach of contract protects a plaintiff’s expectation of receiving the defendant’s performance. That expectation arises out of or is created by the contract. Hence, damages for breach of contract are often described as ‘expectation damages’.
[7][1991] HCA 54; (1991) 174 CLR 64.
Notwithstanding the reading down of the ‘reasonableness’ caveat from Bellgrove in Tabcorp, Tranquillity Pools and Willshee, the NSW Court of Appeal in Cordon Investments Pty Ltd v Lesdor Properties Pty Ltd[8] appears to have approved the relevance of the caveat in cases where the defect does not significantly affect either the functionality or the ascetics of the building. In Cordon, Bathurst CJ with whom Macfarlan JA and Meagher JA agreed stated at 229:
229. Whilst I accept that a possibility that rectification work will not be carried out does not preclude a claim for damages: Bellgrove v Eldridge supra at 620, and that unreasonableness will only be established in exceptional circumstances: Tabcorp Holdings Ltd supra at [17], in the present case the carrying out of the work would be unreasonable in the sense described by Giles JA in Westpoint Management Ltd v Chocolate Factory Apartments Ltd[9] supra (McColl and Campbell JJA agreeing). His Honour dealt with the issue in the following manner (at [59]- [61]):
…
[61] So if supervening events mean that the rectification work cannot be carried out, it can hardly be found that the rectification work is reasonable in order to achieve the contractual objective: achievement of the contractual objective is no longer relevant. If sale of the property to a contented purchaser means that the plaintiff did not think and the purchaser does not think the rectification work needs to be carried out, it may well be found to be unreasonable to carry out, the rectification work. An intention not to carry out the rectification work will not of itself make carrying out the work unreasonable, but it may be evidentiary of unreasonableness; if the reason for the intention is that the property is perfectly functional and aesthetically pleasing despite the non-complying work, for example, it may well be found that rectification is out of all proportion to achievement of the contractual objective or to the benefit to be thereby obtained. (emphasis added)
[8][2012] NSWCA 184.
[9][2007] NSWCA 253.
In Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth[10] reconstruction of a swimming pool which was nine inches less deep than it should have been, but was perfectly serviceable as a swimming pool, was considered to be unreasonable. The House of Lords held in that case that where the expenditure necessary to rectify the defect in the building was out of all proportion to the benefit to be obtained the appropriate measure of damages was not the cost of reinstatement but the diminution in the value of the work occasioned by the breach, even if that would result in a nominal award. The House rejected a claim for £21,560 damages for reconstructing a swimming pool that was 1 foot 6 inches too shallow. The House saw the following matters as indicating that the cost of reconstruction was not recoverable:
The trial judge made the following findings which are relevant to this appeal: (1) the pool as constructed was perfectly safe to dive into; (2) there was no evidence that the shortfall in depth had decreased the value of the pool; (3) the only practicable method of achieving a pool of the required depth would be to demolish the existing pool and reconstruct a new one at a cost of £21,560; (4) he was not satisfied that the respondent intended to build a new pool at such a cost; (5) in addition such cost would be wholly disproportionate to the disadvantage of having a pool of a depth of only 6 feet as opposed to 7 feet 6 inches and it would therefore be unreasonable to carry out the works; and (6) that the respondent was entitled to damages for loss of amenity in the sum of £2,500.
[10][1994] 1 WLR 650 at 655; [1994] 3 All ER 801 at 806.
In Brewarrina Shire Council v Beckhaus Civil Pty Ltd[11] rectification of the dry side of a levee was unreasonable when the levee would adequately perform its function and the rectification work would not increase its capacity to repel floodwater. In that case Tobias JA said at [89], with the agreement of McColl JA and Giles JA, that -
... whether the rectification work is a reasonable course to adopt is dependent upon a finding of fact that the proposed work was reasonable in order to achieve the contractual objective. The rectification work would be unreasonable if it was out of all proportion to the achievement of that objective or to the benefit to be obtained therefrom.
[11][2006] NSWCA 361.
In Westpoint Management Ltd v Chocolate Factory Apartments Ltd; Chocolate Factory Apartments v Westpoint Finance & Ors[12] Giles JA with whom McColl JA and Campbell JA agreed said that:
Reasonableness involves regard to the purpose of the building work, for example in Brewarinna Shire Council v Beckhaus Civil Pty Ltd having a levee to repel floodwater. As Lord Jauncey observed in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth at 358, it is reasonableness in relation to the particular contract and not at large, so that -
“if I contracted for the erection of a folly in my garden which shortly thereafter suffered a total collapse it would be irrelevant to the determination of my loss to argue that the erection of such a folly which contributed nothing to the value of my house was a crazy thing to do”.
[12][2007] NSWCA 253.
In Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth at 358 Lord Jauncey took this as saying that it would be unreasonable to treat as a loss the cost of carrying out work which would never in fact be done. His Lordship said at 359 -
… I should emphasise that in the normal case the court has no concern with the use to which a plaintiff puts an award of damages for a loss which has been established. ... Intention, or lack of it, to reinstate can have relevance only to reasonableness and hence to the extent of the loss which has been sustained. Once that loss has been established intention as to the subsequent use of the damages ceases to be relevant.
The Western Australian Court of Appeal in Willshee v WestCourt[13] considered a claim by the appellant that WestCourt Ltd (WestCourt) breached a term of a contract for the construction of a house by using inferior or second quality limestone in the external cladding of the house. The trial judge upheld Mr Willshee's claim, but awarded him damages which reflected only the cost of cleaning and sealing the limestone, and some repainting necessitated by the cleaning and sealing work. Mr Willshee's claim for damages in an amount equal to the costs of, and associated with, replacement of the inferior limestone was rejected by the trial judge.
[13][2009] WASCA 81.
The Court of Appeal in Willshee then said:
As the High Court points out in Tabcorp, the question of whether or not Mr Willshee's views in this respect are idiosyncratic, or would be shared by others, is not to the point. Mr Willshee entered into a contract which he considered served his interests, and he is entitled to the performance of that contract quite irrespective of the views which other people might form in relation to the advancement of those interests, such as views relating to the aesthetic appearance of the house.
APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS
What were the Millers expectations from this contract in relation to the roof? Clearly they required “roof sheeting to match existing” as is stated on Mondo Plan W-2001 Elevation 01 and this they received.
They required a pitching height of 2450mm to the “top of timber bearer” according to the same plan Section C-C and this they also received.
As conceded by Mr Sweeney of Mondo Architects, the Plans do not give the roof pitch except that it can be calculated from the pitching height and the roof overhang which is given on Dwg-5001 as 790mm.
The Millers did not receive an overhang of 790mm but according to Mr Jover it is approximately 650mm.
The plans also do not give the height of the roof at the apex but it is clear from the evidence that this roof was built approximately140mm higher than was required to achieve the overhang of 790mm but on the evidence this is not noticeable and there was no evidence that it caused any loss to the Millers.
The evidence from both valuers was that the roof pitch was not noticeable and having carried out an inspection this Tribunal finds this to be the case.
Mr Pullos stated that “the roof pitch (difference) would be imperceptible to the naked eye and highly unlikely to be noticed by purchasers”.
While Mr Messingham stated that “…The visual variation between buildings is probably not noticeable to a casual observer” but he said “it has considerable repercussions”.
Those repercussions are a reference to the lower fascia height outside the pool house and the effect of the reduced overhang, especially in regard to the games room doors.
The fascia height can be easily rectified and the Millers were awarded $1,950[14] by the Appeals Tribunal to rectify this matter.
[14]At different places in the decision of the Appeals Tribunal this cost is referred to as $1,850 and $1,950. This Tribunal finds that the cost was $1,950.
This leaves the reduced overhang especially in regard to the games room doors that protrude out from under the eaves by a few millimetres, but remain under the gutters. The overhang has been reduced from 790mm to 650mm where the pool house fronts the pool. The Tribunal notes that while the overhang does not conform with the plans it is not defective work.
In summary, this overhang issue constitutes the Miller’s loss from Lida Build’s failure to abide by the contract.
This raises several questions: Was Lida Build’s failure to abide by the contract a serious and significant breach? Was the building substantially in accordance with the contract? Is it necessary to rectify the overhang from 650mm to 790mm at a minimum cost of $23,650? Would it be unreasonable to do so?
This Tribunal finds that the building is substantially in accordance with the contract (See Bellgrove v Eldridge[15]) and Lida Build’s failure to abide by the contract was not a serious and significant breach. The breach does not significantly affect either the functionality or the ascetics of the building which could explain why the Millers have not rectified the work they complain of, even though over four years have passed since they first made their complaint. Therefore, applying the Cordon[16] decision “it may well be found that rectification is out of all proportion to achievement of the contractual objective or to the benefit to be thereby obtained.” This Tribunal so finds.
[15]at 617 per Dixon CJ, Webb and Taylor JJ.
[16][2012] NSWCA 184.
On the basis of all of the evidence, this Tribunal makes the following findings: (1) the pool house roof as constructed with a 29 degree pitch was not defective; (2) the difference in the pitch was not noticeable; (3) the only practicable method of achieving a pitch of 25 degrees would be to demolish the existing roof and reconstruct a new one at a cost of between $23,650 to $33,408.80; (4) the fact that the Millers have not done any work to rectify the roof in over four years and further they have listed the property for sale leads to the finding that this work is not necessary; (5) the fascia height can be easily rectified and the Millers were awarded $1,950 by the Appeals Tribunal to rectify the fascia height; (6) the demolish and reconstruct cost would be wholly disproportionate to the disadvantage of having 2 games room doors that protrude out from under the eaves by a few millimetres, but remain under the gutters, and a 140mm narrower overhang.
Given these findings, which are somewhat similar to the trial judges findings in Ruxley[17], the Tribunal finds that it is unnecessary and unreasonable to carry out the works at a cost which is wholly disproportionate to the benefit to be achieved.
[17]1994] 1 WLR 650 at 655; [1994] 3 All ER 801 at 806.
Under such circumstance the Tribunal finds that that the Millers are entitled to nominal damages in relation to the overhang, which the Tribunal fixes in the sum of $2,500. This is in addition to the $1,950 awarded to them by the Appeals Tribunal to rectify the fascia height.
If the Tribunal is wrong in its application of the law as set-out above, it would assess the Millers damages under Tabcorp Holdings at the rectification cost of $23,650 based on the JDT quote. However, this Tribunal finds that it is unnecessary and unreasonable to carry out the works at that cost which is wholly disproportionate to the benefit to be achieved.
This Tribunal again applies the principles of Bellgrove v Eldridge and rejects the valuation evidence as an appropriate measure of damages. The valuation evidence has been used only to assess the issues of whether or not it was necessary or unreasonable to rectify.
The Millers requested interest on any amount awarded to them under section 77(2)(c) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 which calls up Regulation 34B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2003. As the parties had entered into a contract, the Tribunal awards the Millers interest on the sum of $4,450 at the rate specified in the contract. The Tribunal ascertained from the Commonwealth Bank’s website that this rate is 9.98 percent to which must be added 5 percent which results in a rate of 14.98 per cent on a monthly charging cycle. Under the Regulation, interest is payable from the date of this Order until and including the day the amount is paid. The Tribunal awards the Millers interest on this basis on the $4,450.
The Appeals Tribunal determined that the Millers should pay the Millers $61,484.76 of which they were directed and have paid $25,795.78, leaving a balance pending of $35,688.98.
After deducting the $2,500 and the $1,950 the Tribunal orders that the Millers pay Lida Build Pty Ltd the sum of $31,238.98. The Tribunal awards Lida Build Pty Ltd interest on $31,238.98 at 14.98 per cent on a monthly charging cycle payable from the date of this Order until and including the day the amount is paid.
ORDERS
Peter Miller and Susan Miller shall pay Lida Build Pty Ltd the sum of $31,238.98.
Peter Miller and Susan Miller shall pay Lida Build Pty Ltd interest on the sum of $31,238.98 at the rate of 14.98 per cent payable from the date of this Order until and including the day the amount is paid.
Lida Build Pty Ltd shall allow Peter Miller and Susan Miller a deduction from the amount to be paid to it for interest on the sum of $4,450 at the rate of 14.98 per cent payable from the date of this Order until and including the day the amount is paid.
7
0