McGrath v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2024] QCAT 393

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

McGrath v Queensland Building and Construction Commission and Ors [2024] QCAT 393

PARTIES:

CAMERON STUART ANTHONY MCGRATH

(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 by…

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.

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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QCAT 393
Decision Date: 11 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of McGrath v Queensland Building and Construction Commission, the dispute involved a homeowner who entered into a contract with a contractor for the construction of certain building works. The nature of the contract was domestic building work, and there was no written contract document, dated and signed by the parties, which rendered the contract of no effect under the statutory provisions of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991. The homeowner subsequently purported to terminate the contract, and the contractor sought a review of a decision by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission to allow a claim under the Queensland Home Warranty Insurance Scheme. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining whether the contract was of no effect, whether it was validly terminated, and if the homeowner was entitled to assistance under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme for non-completion.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included the effect of the absence of a written contract document on the enforceability of the agreement, and whether the homeowner could validly terminate a contract that was of no effect for the purposes of the Queensland Home Warranty Insurance Scheme. The court had to consider the statutory requirements for the validity of a building contract and the implications of the contract's invalidity on the homeowner's ability to seek relief under the Scheme. The court also had to examine the Commission's decision to allow the claim under the Scheme in light of the contract's invalidity and the subsequent purported termination.

The Tribunal concluded that the contract was of no effect due to the absence of a written document, dated and signed by the parties, as required by the statute. Consequently, the contract could not have been validly terminated, and the homeowner was not entitled to assistance under the Queensland Home Warranty Insurance Scheme. The Tribunal amended the Tribunal Record to reflect the correct name of the third respondent and declared that the building contract was of no effect and could not have been validly terminated. The decision was in favour of the contractor, and the homeowner's claim under the Scheme was disallowed.

No further orders were made beyond those stated in the decision. The Tribunal's ruling effectively prevented the homeowner from relying on the invalid contract to seek compensation under the Queensland Home Warranty Insurance Scheme, thereby upholding the statutory requirements for the validity of building contracts and the consequences of their invalidity.

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.