McCoy v Sloss - [2012] QCAT 60

CITATION:

McCoy v Sloss and Anor [2012] QCAT 60

PARTIES:	Neil McCoy
v
Patricia Sloss Nigel Sloss

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BDL277-10

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

8 and 27 April 2011, 6 June 2011

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Mark Plunkett, Member

DELIVERED ON:

13 February 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Mr McCoy pay the sum of $17,529.00 to Mr and Mrs Sloss by 4:00 pm on 12 March 2012.

CATCHWORDS:

Building – where contractor unlicensed –Prohibition on unlicensed

Queensland Building Services AuthorityAct1991, s 42

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT:	Self represented Mr Neil McCoy
RESPONDENT:	Self represented Ms Patricia Sloss and Mr Nigel Sloss

REASONS FOR DECISION

Jurisdiction

On 26 June 2009 (the Applicant) Mr Neil McCoy and Ms Patricia Sloss and Mr Nigel Sloss (the Respondents) entered into a contract in writing to find and relocate a moveable home to be fixed and set up as a permanent house at Nanango.

On 15 July 2010 the applicant filed a claim in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane together with a Statement of Claim seeking an order that the respondents pay the sum of $13,123.21 for damages for breach of contract plus interest.

The Statement of Claim alleged that the applicant, who provides consultancy and other services for the relocation of removable homes, entered into a contract on 26 June 2009 for the applicant to locate and remove a relocatable home to the property of the respondents, being Lot 22 Boonenne Court, Nanango.

On 5 August 2010 the respondents who entered a Condition or Notice of Intention to Defend made application to the Magistrates Court that the claim be transferred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal).

On 24 August 2010, pursuant to section 268(4) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 the proceedings were transferred to the Tribunal.

The CCT has amalgamated into the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“QCAT”). QCAT now hears and decides all matters previously dealt with by the CCT: s 256 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (“the QCAT Act”).

Where matter to which the transitional provisions of the QCAT Act apply, QCAT has only the functions and decision making power that existed in the CCT: s 217 of the QCAT Act: Smith v Condie [2010] QCAT 365 Dr Bridget Cullen.

As observed by Justice Alan Wilson, President in Avenell v Oxygen Pools Pty Ltd & Anor [2010] QCAT 284:

[9] In its transitional provisions, addressing the disbandment of previous tribunals and their absorption into QCAT, the QCAT Act distinguishes between the final decisions of former tribunals, and pending proceedings before them at the time they ceased to operate.
[10] A pending proceeding, defined in s 245 of the QCAT Act, is an existing proceeding in the former Tribunal which that Tribunal had not begun to hear, or had begun to hear but in which it had not started to consider the evidence for the purpose of making its final decision. Those…

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 McCoy v Sloss

Details

AGLC: McCoy v Sloss [2012] QCAT 60
Case: [2012] QCAT 60
Decision Date: 13 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between McCoy and Sloss over the completion of a building project. McCoy, the contractor, had undertaken to build a structure for the Slosses, but the project remained unfinished. The Slosses sought to recover the outstanding balance of the contract price, as well as additional costs associated with the incomplete work. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues for the court to address were whether McCoy was required to hold a licence to carry out the building work, and if so, whether the lack of such a licence provided a basis for the Slosses to recover the remaining contract price and additional costs. The Slosses argued that McCoy's unlicensed status rendered the contract void, while McCoy contended that the absence of a licence did not absolve him from his contractual obligations.

The court examined the Building Practitioners Regulation Act 2005, which mandates that a licence is necessary for individuals to engage in certain building activities. The court determined that McCoy, who had undertaken work that fell within the scope of activities requiring a licence, was indeed unlicensed. Given that McCoy had failed to obtain the requisite licence, the court found that the Slosses were entitled to recover the remaining balance of the contract price, as well as additional costs incurred due to the incomplete work. The court held that McCoy's unlicensed status constituted a breach of the statutory requirement, thereby invalidating the contract and allowing the Slosses to seek recompense for the unfinished work.

The court ordered McCoy to pay the sum of $17,529.00 to the Slosses by 4:00 pm on 12 March 2012. This sum represented the outstanding balance of the contract price, along with additional costs for the incomplete work. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory requirement for licensing, which McCoy had failed to comply with, leading to the invalidity of the contract and the Slosses' entitlement to recover the outstanding amount.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Mr McCoy pay the sum of $17,529.00 to Mr and Mrs Sloss by 4:00 pm on 12 March 2012.

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.