Manwin v Jakubowski

[2004] QDC 178

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Manwin v Jakubowski & Anor [2004] QDC 178
PARTIES:	ATANAS MANWIN

Appellant

v

HENRY JAKUBOWSKI

First Respondent

and

ROMAN TOMASZENSKI

Second Respondent

FILE NO/S:	D2470/03
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 June 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 June 2004
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	BUILDING AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS – Performance of work – whether Building Tribunal entitled to find work substantially completed, and not shown to be defective.
COUNSEL:	Each party appeared in person
SOLICITORS:

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Queensland Building Tribunal delivered on 27 June 2003 by which the Tribunal ordered that the appellant before me, the respondent before the Tribunal, pay to the applicant before the Tribunal the sum of $12,219.00 together with a filing fee of $200 by a particular date, together with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application. There was also a counterclaim by the appellant, which was rejected by the Tribunal. The appeal is brought pursuant to the Queensland Building Tribunal Act 2000 s 92, and is an appeal by way of re-hearing.[1]

   [1]            Pointon v Redcliffe Demolitions Pty Ltd (2002) 23 Qld Lawyer R 103.

2. In the proceedings before the Tribunal neither party was legally represented, although the appellant had had the assistance of a solicitor at one stage prior to the hearing, in connection with some earlier directions hearings, and in the preparation of a statement by him which became Exhibit 7 before the Tribunal. Neither party was represented on the hearing of the appeal.

3. The appellant had a contract[2] with the Body Corporate of a commercial building in North Quay to replace some concrete surfacing around the building. That involved digging up the existing concrete surface and laying reinforced concrete to a depth of about 50-70mm. The concrete was to have a polished and sealed surface, was to be marked out in overlapping rectangles about 1m by 2m, and was to have a small square feature in one corner of each rectangle. The contract referred to this as honed decorative concrete, with decorative tile inserts. Some areas were to be treated differently, but only in terms of the shape of the marking and the position of the square features. Initially the square features were to be ceramic tiles. Ultimately the squares were filled with terrazzo. The contract was dated 27 November 2001, and provided for commencement of work on 1 December and practical completion on 10 January 2002.

   [2]            See Document 4 in Exhibit 7.

4. By a sub-contract dated 5 December 2001[3] the appellant and the respondents agreed that the respondents would carry out the concrete polishing, seal the short cut joints with coloured Sikaflex, and apply the surface sealer to the concrete. The commencement date was given as 11 December, with the contract providing that the work would take “no more than 10 working days to be completed.”

   [3]            See Document…