Malone v Prentis

[2013] QCAT 101

CITATION: Malone v Prentis [2013] QCAT 101

PARTIES:	Patrick Antony Malone (Applicant)
v
Clifford Prentis Jackalyn Prentis (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO2604/12

MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE: 6 February 2013

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Kevin O’Hanlon, Adjudicator

DELIVERED ON: 7 March 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: QBSA - Irrigation licence – requirements to be qualified – payment for accounts - services other than materials

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Patrick Malone in person.

RESPONDENT: Clifford Prentis and Jackalyn Prentis in person.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This matter involves a dispute about repairs to a garden irrigation reticulation system at the Coochiemudlo Island Resort.  The work was claimed to be done by Patrick Malone and he has named the respondents as Clifford and Jackalyn Prentis trading as Coochie Island Resort, who deny that they owe Mr Malone the amount he claims for his service.

2. Mr Malone contends that it was a verbal agreement between he and the respondents that he would repair the old irrigation system for the gardens and the lawns of the Coochie Island Resort.  There is a dispute as to the terms of that agreement.

3. Eventually after some work Mr Malone presented a handwritten tax invoice statements numbers 34 and 44 dated respectively 6 August 2012 and 28 September 2012.  On the first invoice Mr Malone seeks the sum of $2,410.85 for many hours of work at the rate of $30 per hour and $3 GST on top of that hourly rate.  On the second invoice he claims the sum of $264.00 for further work done at the same rate and GST amount.

4. Mr Malone now seeks payment of the sum of $1,910.85 from Clifford Prentis for the repairs he did to the lawn and gardens sprinkler irrigation system, as set out above.  He also seeks the filing fee of $98.00 and interest at $191.00.

5. It was undisputed that Mr and Mrs Prentis engaged Mr Malone to carry out repairs and certain work.  The work that was done is in dispute as is the amount of work and repairs that were done and the claimed amount; and further that as he is not licenced he is therefore unable to charge for his invoices.

6. I was referred by the respondent to the Irrigation Australia Licensing Requirements.  In short Mr Prentis said that Mr Malone did not carry the appropriate licence to install or repair the irrigation system.  Mr Malone concedes that he is not licenced but has spent many years in plumbing supplies and knew what he was doing. 

7. As stated above, this matter was adjourned so that I could look at the requirements for Mr Malone and whether it was necessary for him to have an irrigation licence.  The BSA irrigation licence requirements state as follows:

   Scope of work

   (1)Assess, select and install irrigation equipment for various landscaping situations including for example overhead finish sprinkler dripper and pop up sprinklers etc.

   (2)The irrigation licence requirements then state the technical qualifications are for anyone of the following:

   (a)Possession of a water plumbers – irrigation licence issued by the plumbing Industry Council.

   (b)Possession of a plumber’s licence and a drainer’s licence issued by the Plumbing Industry Council.

   (c)A recognition certificate as a qualified plumber and drainer and various other qualifications (none of which Mr Malone possesses by his own admission.)

8. I have no doubt of Mr Malone’s experience but according to QBSA it does not allow for him to claim compensation for services that he has rendered.  The only matters he can claim for are materials he supplied for the job. 

9. Indeed, it has been decided in the Supreme Court of Queensland that under QBSA a contractor cannot claim payment for services for which he is not licenced. 

10. I note that in the evidence from Mr Prentis that he has already paid $500 to Mr Malone.  There was no direct evidence from Mr Malone as to the exact amount he outlaid for any materials.  Obviously if it could be shown by Mr Malone that he has clear evidence for the materials that he supplied for the job than it follows Mr Prentis should reimburse him for such materials. 

11. In other respects the application is dismissed.