McGeoch v Harrison - [2024] QCAT 314

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

McGeoch & Anor v Harrison [2024] QCAT 314

PARTIES:

BRYAN MCGEOCH

(first applicant)

NICOLA LISHMAN

(second applicant)

v

BILLY JACK WILLIAM ROBERT HARRISON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL069-23

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

1 August 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member R. Oden

Member H. Scott-Mackenzie

ORDERS:

1. The Tribunal orders that the respondent, Billy Jack William Robert Harrison, pay to the applicants, Bryan McGeoch and Nicola Lishman, the sum of $11,825.00 plus costs of $367.00, a total of $12,192.00, within 60 days of the date of delivery of this decision.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF ROOF PAINTING WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – IMPLIED TERMS AND WARRANTIES – DAMAGES – where there was no formal contract in writing signed by the parties – where work is defective – where the owner was entitled to recover for damage caused by the building contractor for defective work

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act
1991 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009

(Qld)

Atkinson and Anor v Van Uden [2020] QCAT 259
Cameron v Guise [2019] QCAT 220
Ghama v Crew & Anor [2020] QCAT 149
Skinner v FTP Contracting Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2020]
QCATA 12

Zhang v Todd [2019] QCAT 208

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

The respondent, Mr Harrison, carried out painting of the roof, gutters, garage door and facias of the applicants’, Mr McGeoch and Ms Lishman, house. The handwritten pro forma Quotation numbered 98, dated 8 June 2022 and signed by the respondent, indicated that the roof would also have ‘prep’ work included and ‘pressure cleaning’ performed.[1] The contract price for the work was $3,280 and the commencement date was noted as 11 July 2022. A deposit of $580 was to be paid and the respondent included his bank details on the Quotation to allow for the deposit to be deposited directly.
[1]Copy of quotation attached to email to QCAT from applicants dated 12 April 2023.
The applicants’ evidence is that the painting work was never fully completed, and that the work that was done was inferior and not of a suitable standard. The applicants also allege that there was significant overspray onto the eaves, downpipes, solar panels and other building structures.
No formal contract was entered into apart from the Quotation dated 8 June 2022 previously referred to, and the contract is limited to oral conversations and text messages between the parties.
The applicants’ claim is for defective work as they assert that the roof was not primed, is rough to touch and roof paint was not used such that it will peel and looks unsightly. The applicants’ additional claim for damages is that they assert that the over spraying should be cleaned, and the surfaces rectified. The…

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 McGeoch v Harrison

Details

AGLC: McGeoch v Harrison [2024] QCAT 314
Case: [2024] QCAT 314
Decision Date: 1 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bryan McGeoch and Nicola Lishman, as the owners of property in Melbourne, engaged Billy Jack William Robert Harrison to perform roof painting work. Disputes arose over the quality of the work performed and Harrison's failure to complete the task within the agreed timeframe. The matter was brought before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the circumstances. The primary issue was whether a formal written contract was necessary to establish the terms of the agreement and whether the owners were entitled to compensation for the defective work. Additionally, the Tribunal needed to assess the quantum of damages, if any, due to the breach of contract.

The Tribunal found that although there was no written contract signed by both parties, the actions and communications between the parties established an agreement for the performance of roof painting work. The Tribunal determined that the owners were entitled to recover for the damage caused by the contractor's defective work. The owners were awarded damages in the amount of $11,825.00, reflecting the cost of rectifying the defective work. The Tribunal also awarded costs of $367.00, bringing the total amount payable by the contractor to $12,192.00.

The Tribunal emphasised that the absence of a written contract did not preclude the existence of an enforceable agreement. The evidence presented demonstrated an understanding between the parties regarding the scope of work, timelines, and payment. The Tribunal held that the implied terms and warranties, as well as the principle of restitution, supported the recovery of damages for the defective work. The Tribunal directed the contractor to pay the awarded sum to the owners within 60 days of the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal orders that the respondent, Billy Jack William Robert Harrison, pay to the applicants, Bryan McGeoch and Nicola Lishman, the sum of $11,825.00 plus costs of $367.00, a total of $12,192.00, within 60 days of the date of delivery of this decision.

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.