Manson v Brett (No. 2)

Case [2019] QCAT 411

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Manson v Brett & Anor (No. 2) [2019] QCAT 411
PARTIES: LEE MANSON T/AS MANSON HOMES

(applicant)

v
STEWART BRETT
and
SARAH PURNELL

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL117-14

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2019

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Paratz
ORDERS:

1.   Stewart Brett and Sarah Purnell are to pay to Lee Manson t/as Manson Homes the amount of $25,254.00.

2.   Lee Manson t/as Manson Homes is to provide to Stuart Brett and Sarah Purnell all certificates of inspection in relation to the property at 16 Lynch Street Newmarket, Queensland, which are in his power or possession.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – whether a builder is entitled to payment for sums claimed under a contract or on a quantum meruit basis – whether interest can be paid on a quantum meruit claim – where assessment of a quantum meruit claim by a builder was considered

THE CONTRACT – CONSTRUCTION OF PARTICULAR CONTRACTS AND IMPLIED CONDITIONS – OTHER MATTERS – whether a builder is entitled to payment for sums claimed under a contract or on a quantum merit basis – whether interest can be paid on a quantum meruit claim – where assessment of a quantum meruit claim by a builder was considered

REMUNERATION – RECOVERY ON QUANTUM MERUIT – IN GENERAL – whether a builder is entitled to payment for sums claimed under a contract or on a quantum meruit basis – whether interest can be paid on a quantum meruit claim – where assessment of a quantum meruit claim by a builder was considered

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – whether damages arose for alleged difference in value on sale of a property as a result of non-provision of inspection certificates – whether the owners are entitled to rent incurred, and for what period, whilst the property was being rectified – whether a claim for Solatium in a building dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal – where principles as to Solatium were discussed – whether an order should be made for production of inspection certificates

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld), s 84
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77(3)(h)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100

Austman Ltd v Mount Gibson Mining Ltd [2012] WASC 202
Boncristiano v Lohmann [1998] 4 VR 82
Cavric Pty Ltd t/a Cavalier Homes Mackay v Cameron [2010] QCATA 90
Coshott v Fewings Joinery Pty Ltd (unreported, New South Wales Supreme Court, CA, 15 July 1996)
D Galambos & Son Pty Ltd v McIntyre (1974) 5 ACTR 10
Dyer v Spence [2017] QCAT 211
Kirkby & Anor v Coote & Ors [2005] QSC 197
Lyons v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Dreamstarter Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2016] QCAT 218
Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32
Partington & Anor v…

Continue reading Manson v Brett (No. 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Manson v Brett (No. 2) [2019] QCAT 411
Case
[2019] QCAT 411
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Manson v Brett (No. 2) involved a dispute between Lee Manson, trading as Manson Homes, and Stewart Brett and Sarah Purnell. The crux of the matter was the builder's entitlement to payment for sums claimed under a contract or on a quantum meruit basis, as well as the applicability of interest on a quantum meruit claim. The dispute was heard and determined in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The court was tasked with determining whether the builder, Manson, was entitled to the sums claimed either under the contract or on a quantum meruit basis. It also had to decide if interest could be paid on a quantum meruit claim and whether Manson was entitled to damages for the difference in value on the sale of a property due to the non-provision of inspection certificates. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the owners were entitled to rent incurred while the property was being rectified, and whether a claim for Solatium in a building dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

The court held that Manson was entitled to payment for the sums claimed under a quantum meruit basis. It ruled that interest could not be paid on a quantum meruit claim. The assessment of Manson's claim for damages due to the difference in value on the sale of the property was also considered, but no damages were awarded for that claim. The court further determined that the owners were entitled to rent incurred while the property was being rectified for a specified period. The claim for Solatium was found to be outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Lastly, the court ordered Manson to provide all certificates of inspection in his possession or power to Brett and Purnell.

The orders made by the court were for Manson to pay Brett and Purnell the amount of $25,254.00 and for Manson to provide all certificates of inspection in his possession or power relating to the property at 16 Lynch Street, Newmarket, Queensland.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Stewart Brett and Sarah Purnell are to pay to Lee Manson t/as Manson Homes the amount of $25,254.00.

2. Lee Manson t/as Manson Homes is to provide to Stuart Brett and Sarah Purnell all certificates of inspection in relation to the property at 16 Lynch Street Newmarket, Queensland, which are in his power or possession.

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.