Mikita v Kontek Constructions Pty Ltd

The applicant, Mikita, brought a claim against the respondent, Kontek Constructions, in relation to concreting work carried out at a property the applicant owned. The applicant paid the contract price but claimed that the work was defective. The respondent did not admit to liability and the case proceeded to a trial. The central issue for determination was whether the contract between the parties was regulated under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld). The court found that the contract was indeed regulated and that the applicant could not bring a claim under the Act due to the absence of a signed and dated contract. The court then considered whether the applicant could bring a claim in contract and found that this was also precluded by the absence of a signed and dated contract. The court then considered whether the applicant could bring a claim in negligence. The court found that the respondent owed a duty of care to the applicant in carrying out, and attempting to rectify, the concreting work. The court found that the respondent breached this duty of care and awarded damages to the applicant. The court assessed the damages and ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $77,442.23 within twenty-eight days of the date of the decision.