QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
McGrath v Queensland Building and Construction Commission and Ors [2024] QCAT 396
PARTIES:
CAMERON STUART ANTHONY MCGRATH MILLER (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (first respondent)
MIGNON HADENFELDT (second respondent)
DAMON STEVENSON AKA DAMON HADENFELDT AKA DAMON HADENFELDT-STEVENSON (third respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
GAR 166-23
MATTER TYPE:
General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:
11 September 2024
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Cairns
DECISION OF:
Member Taylor
ORDERS:
1. The Tribunal Record is amended to record the name of the third respondent as being ‘Damon Stevenson aka Damon Hadenfeldt aka Damon Hadenfeldt-Stevenson’.
2. It is declared that the building contract entered into on or about 27 June 2022 between the applicant and the second and/or the third respondent was of no effect as a result of s 14(2) and s 14(10) of Schedule 1B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld).
3. It is further declared that, in the premise of the said building contract being of no effect, it could not have been, and so was not, validly terminated, on the default of the applicant, for the purposes of s 4(1)(a) of Schedule 6 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld).
CATCHWORDS:
ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF ACTS – GENERALLY – where a homeowner entered into a contract with a contractor for the construction of certain building works – where the work under the contract was domestic building work – where there was no written contract document, dated and signed by the parties – where under statute the contract was thus of no effect – whether as a result of the contract being of no effect could cover under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme ever have come into force
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where a building contractor seeks review of a decision of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission to allow a claim under the Queensland Home Warranty Insurance Scheme – where there was no written contract document - where the Commission sought to have preliminary issues decided in terms of whether the contract was of no effect and whether the contract was validly terminated for the purposes of the Scheme
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACT – OTHER MATTERS - where a homeowner entered into a contract with a contractor for the construction of certain building works - where there was no written contract document, dated and signed by the parties – where the homeowner purported to have terminated the contract – whether the contract was of effect such that it could be validly terminated
CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – ILLEGAL AND VOID CONTRACTS – EFFECT OF ILLEGALITY OR INVALIDITY – where a homeowner entered into a contract with a contractor for the construction of certain building works – where the work under the contract was domestic building work - where there was no written contract document, dated and signed…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read McGrath v Queensland Building and Construction Commission and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] QCAT 396
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues revolved around the validity of the contract between McGrath and the contractors. The statute required that a written contract document, dated and signed by the parties, be in place for domestic building work. As no such document existed, the contract was deemed ineffective under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991. The secondary issue was whether the ineffective contract could be validly terminated, thus entitling McGrath to coverage under the Queensland Home Warranty Insurance Scheme.
The Tribunal determined that the contract was indeed of no effect due to the absence of a written, dated, and signed document as required by statute. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the contract could not have been validly terminated. As a result, McGrath was not entitled to claim under the Queensland Home Warranty Insurance Scheme for non-completion. The Tribunal further clarified that the record should reflect the name of the third respondent as Damon Stevenson, also known as Damon Hadenfeldt and Damon Hadenfeldt-Stevenson.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Tribunal Record is amended to record the name of the third respondent as being ‘Damon Stevenson aka Damon Hadenfeldt aka Damon Hadenfeldt-Stevenson’.
2. It is declared that the building contract entered into on or about 27 June 2022 between the applicant and the second and/or the third respondent was of no effect as a result of s 14(2) and s 14(10) of Schedule 1B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld).
3. It is further declared that, in the premise of the said building contract being of no effect, it could not have been, and so was not, validly terminated, on the default of the applicant, for the purposes of s 4(1)(a) of Schedule 6 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld).
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.