Local Electrical Pty Ltd v Luppino - [2023] QCAT 34

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Local Electrical Pty Ltd v Luppino [2023] QCAT 34

PARTIES:

local electrical Pty Ltd

(applicant)

v

Liam Luppino

(first respondent)

JOHN LUPPINO

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

BDL139-22

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

31 January 2023

HEARING DATE:

23 January 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member McVeigh

ORDERS:

1.     The respondents must pay the applicant $19,091.50.

2.     The respondents must pay the applicant interest at the rate of 10% on $19,091.50 from 26 November 2018 to the date the payment is made.

3.     The respondents must pay the applicant $352 costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant is an electrical contractor regulated under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld) – whether minor commercial dispute between an electrical contractor and a building owner is a ‘building dispute’

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – OTHER MATTERS – whether applicant required to comply with s 77(2) Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) – whether Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction where the Queensland Building and Construction Commission has no Early Dispute Resolution Process for commercial disputes

Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld), s 20, s 55(1)(a), s 56(1) Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 75(1)(c), s 75(2), s 77(1), s 77(3)(c), s 77(3)(h), sch 2

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), s 54, sch 1, s 20

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 11, sch 3, s 1(a), s 2

Peter Broadbent Electrical Pty Ltd v Harrison [2022] QCATA 91

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondents:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

In 2018 the Luppinos leased premises in Queen Street Brisbane for use as a luxury hairdressing salon. As part of the leasing arrangements, the landlord contributed approximately $220,000 towards the fitout. The fitout was designed by an architect. It called for electrical work. The Luppinos received a quote of $57,678.77 for the electrical work.[1] However the contractor could not start until two weeks later than the date the Luppinos wanted the work to commence. Mr John Luppino contacted Mr Chris Tweedie, the principal of Local Electrical Pty Ltd, an electrical contractor with which he had done business in the past. In order to help out, Mr Tweedie agreed to take on the work.
[1]Exhibit 3 p 77.
The work was done in the period 18 September 2018 to 2 November 2018. The applicant issued three invoices for that work totalling $42,494.90. The applicant claims that $19,091.50 is outstanding. It also claims interest on the outstanding money.
The Luppinos defend the claim on the bases that the work was not done on time, was not up to the required standard, that the applicant should pay for the cost of repairing damage to other work caused by its employees and for costs incurred to rectify defective works.

Jurisdiction

This is a minor commercial building dispute. In Peter Broadbent Electrical Pty Ltd v Harrison[2] SM Brown navigated his way…

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 Local Electrical Pty Ltd v Luppino

Details

AGLC: Local Electrical Pty Ltd v Luppino [2023] QCAT 34
Case: [2023] QCAT 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Local Electrical Pty Ltd v Luppino, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was required to determine the outcome of a minor commercial building dispute between Local Electrical Pty Ltd, an electrical contractor, and the Luppinos, who leased premises in Queen Street Brisbane for use as a luxury hairdressing salon. The dispute involved claims by the Luppinos that the electrical work was not completed on time, was not up to the required standard, and that the applicant should pay for the cost of repairing damage to other work caused by its employees and for costs incurred to rectify defective works. The tribunal also had to decide whether the applicant was required to comply with the procedural requirements of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (QBCC Act) and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction over the dispute.

The tribunal found that the dispute was a minor commercial building dispute and that the applicant need not comply with the procedural requirements of the QBCC Act as there was no dispute resolution process for commercial disputes. The tribunal concluded that the parties had entered into an oral contract whereby the applicant would perform electrical work for the fitout of the salon at an hourly rate and use materials specified or approved by the respondents. The tribunal rejected the Luppinos' claims of poor workmanship and non-compliance with the architectural plans, finding that the applicant had met its contractual obligations. The tribunal ordered the Luppinos to pay Local Electrical Pty Ltd the outstanding balance of $19,091.50, interest at the rate of 10% from 26 November 2018 to the date of payment, and $352 in costs.

The tribunal's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence presented by both parties, including the contemporaneous invoices, text messages, and witness testimony. The tribunal found that the Luppinos had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of poor workmanship and non-compliance with the architectural plans. The tribunal also found that the Luppinos had not discharged the onus of proving their claims that the work was not done on time, was not up to the required standard, and that the applicant should pay for the cost of repairing damage to other work caused by its employees and for costs incurred to rectify defective works. The tribunal ordered the Luppinos to pay Local Electrical Pty Ltd the outstanding balance of $19,091.50, interest at the rate of 10% from 26 November 2018 to the date of payment, and $352 in costs.

Orders