Monaco v Oliver
[2011] QCAT 404
•24 August 2011
| CITATION: | Monaco v Oliver and Anor [2011] QCAT 404 |
| PARTIES: | Robert Monaco |
| v | |
| Mark Oliver Sally Oliver |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | BD422-09 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Building matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 19 August 2011 |
| HEARD AT: | Maroochydore |
| DECISION OF: | B Cotterell, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 24 August 2011 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. Mr Monaco shall pay Mark and Sally Oliver the amount of $15,202 including GST. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Building matter – Application for balance owing under contract and counter-claim for rectification and compensation |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Robert Monaco |
| RESPONDENT: | Mark Oliver |
REASONS FOR DECISION
This application arises from Robert Monaco, a builder, (Mr Monaco) seeking to recover an amount of $10,825 including GST said to be owing under the contract dated 12 March 2009 with Mark and Sally Oliver (the Olivers). The contract for $43,780 was for the construction of a pool and a deck and some other minor work in the existing dwelling. The contract followed a quotation dated 25 January 2009 for $43,780.
The $10,825 claimed by Mr Monaco consisted of $8,780, being the balance owing under the contract, plus $825 claimed for “materials, timber and labour not included in the quote”, $495 claimed for the “granite servery bench supplied and fitted at owners request”, $350 claimed for “Metal strip in lounge at owners request” and $375 claimed for “Re-sanding and re-oiling of appearance grade posts at owners request”.
The Olivers have also counter-claimed alleging that both the pool and the deck are defective and seek the costs of rectification and compensation because the pool is said to be the wrong size and shape and in the wrong place and the deck is said to be smaller than that contracted to be built. The Olivers’ engineer, Mr Gerry Winter, who it transpires is Sally Oliver’s father, estimated the Olivers’ counter-claim at between $57,674.50 and $62,586.66.
The wide difference in the amounts of the counter-claim depends upon whether or not the deck has to be demolished and totally re-built with new material and whether or not the pool has to be demolished and re-built. The other claims are relatively small.
This application was filed in the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal on 16 September 2009 and, under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 it became part of QCAT’s jurisdiction when QCAT was established on 1 December 2009.
Mr Monaco engaged an engineer, Mr John Schwabe, to assist him with his claim and defence of the counter-claim and the Olivers had the assistance of Mr Winter. The Tribunal required the two experts to attend an experts’ conclave with the hope that they could prepare a joint report which they did not achieve. They, however, were requested by the Tribunal to estimate the cost of rectifying the various claims made by the Olivers.
Mr Schwabe provided his estimates in two formats. The first was his estimate of the cost to a builder such as Mr Monaco to rectify the work and the second the cost of an independent builder to be engaged to rectify the work.
Mr Winter, for some reason, asserted that there was an agreement between him and Mr Schwabe that the pool was condemned and should be demolished and rebuilt. There was agreement that the deck had to be demolished and rebuilt but disagreement as to whether or not some of the materials could be reused.
Mr Winter also, for some reason unknown to the Tribunal, did not provide his costings to Mr Schwabe or to the Tribunal until the day of the hearing. Mr Winter’s behaviour in this regard did not assist the preparation of the joint report.
Background to the Dispute
[10] After the contract was signed, the deposit was paid in two payments of $2,500. Mr Monaco sub-contracted the pool out to Spracon who obtained the plans for the pool from Lindsay Consulting Pty Ltd, Structural and Civil Engineers on 24 March 2009. Mr Monaco stated that the excavation for the pool occurred on 24 March 2009 as they damaged the sewer line which required them to purchase a replacement from Reece Pty Ltd on that day as per the invoice for $124.22 of that date. Spracon sprayed the pool on 26 March 2009.
[11] The Olivers alleged that Mr Monaco had started the pool without plans which the Tribunal rejects on the basis of the evidence to the contrary. The Olivers also alleged that the plans were for an in ground pool but the Spracon instructions to Lindsay Consulting Pty Ltd of 17 March 2009 clearly refer to the pool being 600mm out of the ground.
[12] The Olivers were responsible for the cost of rock removal and on 29 March 2009, Mr Monaco supplied them with an invoice for a progress payment of $10,000 and $704 for rock removal and relocation of the sewer pipe. This invoice was paid on 30 March 2009.
[13] On 21 April 2009, Mr Monaco supplied the Olivers with an invoice for a progress payment of $20,000 at the Deck delivery stage. This invoice was not paid promptly and Mr Monaco stated that in a telephone discussion with Mr Oliver he was informed that the Olivers only had $32,000 available from which they had already spent the $15,704. This resulted in Mr Monaco leaving the job for other jobs until the progress payment was received on 22 May 2009. He sent two sub-contractors to build the deck two days after 22 May 2009 and at the hearing he stated that the set-out of the deck including its shape was then discussed and agreed with Mr Oliver.
[14] On 17 July 2009, Mr Oliver showed Mr Monaco a hand written list of concerns which were discussed. This list was not provided to Mr Monaco and was not provided to the Tribunal.
[15] On 28 July 2009, the Olivers sent a list of rectification work prepared by Mr Winter headed Facet Consulting Engineers. In summary it listed the tiling of the swimming pool as substandard and the installation of the timer box as unacceptable. With regards to the deck it stated that the “deck support posts have been concreted into the foundation, the rough sawn timber balustrade posts require to be sanded, the joint between the deck and the tiles should be flexible and the nails to the decking have not been fully hammered in. Other issues were raised relating to the chlorinator, the sliding door to the lounge, the window to the kitchen, the sliding door to the bedroom, the blueboard to be rendered and the site clean-up.
[16] By email on 28 July 2009, Mr Oliver addressed the list of rectification work and amongst other things stated “I am more than happy to pay when we get over these last couple of hurdles.”
[17] On 11 August 2009, after Mr Monaco had attended to some of the rectification, not including the deck support posts he was presented with a further rectification request. One of the things raised was the deck support posts have been concreted into the foundation and the durability of the timber. Mr Oliver then raised issues about the Minor Works Contract form being used when the amount exceeded the $40,000 limit and other contract procedures which Mr Monaco had not followed.
[18] On 11 August 2009, Mr Oliver raised the lack of plans and Council approval for the deck.
[19] On 30 August 2009, Mr Oliver requested a programme in writing of how Mr Monaco proposed to proceed and stated:
“Should you fail to do so, our contractual relationship will be terminated and all costs associated with its termination will be to your account”.
[20] Mr Oliver further stated that:
“No work of any kind, remedial or otherwise. Is to be undertaken…by Robert Monaco...his representatives or subcontractors without prior written authorisation by Mark Oliver permitting the work to proceed.”
[21] Mr Monaco responded in writing to the Olivers and amongst other things stated that he had rectified all minor defects and that:
“Our future intentions involve attending site to complete the following works:
a. The supply and install (sic) galvanised post styrups (sic) to all posts supporting the deck. This has resulted from incorrect timber being delivered by Melco; and
b.The blue board under the front window will be remove (sic) and re-attached flush to the brickwork.
[22] In his letter of 2 September 2009, Mr Monaco stated that the work would be completed in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and would be physically inspected by an independent engineer and a building certifier to confirm that the works had been carried out to Australian standards. He also referred to his statutory insurance and the fact that his work was guaranteed for 6 years and 6 months from the date of practical completion. Mr Monaco named the engineer as Brian Thomas of Focon Group who had prepared drawings for the work which were subsequently supplied to the Olivers. He also named the certifier as Mr Neil Luckett.
[23] Mr Monaco advised of his intention to attend the site within 5 working days of the letter of 2 September 2009 to complete his contractual obligations. He stated that if he was not granted access by 8 September 2009 he would commence proceedings in the CCT.
[24] Mr Thomas sent copies of the drawings to Mr Winter by facsimile on 4 September 2009. Mr Oliver responded by email rejecting “the remedial work proposed in its current form”. Mr Oliver referred to the wrong date being on the facsimile, the builder’s name being misspelt on the plans (Monarco) and no evidence that Mr Thomas was a RPEQ. He based his rejection on a visual inspection of the dimensions and shape of the deck footings and then comparing them to the drawings provided. He also referred to Mr Winter’s email to Mr Thomas which required:
(1)A written scope of work, which includes the approved documented design of the existing deck;
(2)A procedure for undertaking the work;
(3)Complete details of the proposed remedial work including details of the proposed shoe and how it is to be installed;
(4)Form 15 structural certificate of the work.
[25] The Tribunal notes that all of the above were required to be provided without the Olivers providing Mr Thomas and Mr Luckett access to the site to view the problem as requested by Mr Monaco. At the hearing Mr Winter also made criticisms of Mr Luckett.
[26] The method of the installation of the galvanised post stirrups then became an issue which the parties were unable to resolve.
[27] Messrs Winter and Schwabe eventually reached an agreement that the existing deck foundations were unsuitable and would have to be replaced. They remained in disagreement at the hearing as to whether or not the existing foundations would have to be removed. Mr Schwabe was of the opinion that because most of them were under the deck they would not be seen and did not have to removed to save costs.
The Issues
[28] This Tribunal was required to resolve the contractual issues between the parties and to determine the amounts to which each of the parties were entitled under the contract. It was not a disciplinary hearing into the allegations by the Olivers of breaches of the various Acts by Mr Monaco. Unfortunately, the Olivers were diverted in the statements provided to the Tribunal in this regard and it took some effort to ascertain what exactly the Olivers were counter-claiming.
[29] The first issue to determine was the amount of Mr Monaco’s claim. The second issue was the extent of the rectification work required and its cost and then the third issue was the amount of compensation, if any, to which the Olivers were entitled for the alleged defective work.
Mr Monaco’s Claim
[30] Mr Monaco’s claim for $8,780 including GST, being the balance owing under the contract was not really disputed. It simply was not paid because of the allegations in the counter-claim, which unfortunately increased as the dispute continued. The Tribunal finds that this amount of $8,780 including GST was payable subject to the work being completed satisfactorily.
[31] The amount of $825 claimed for “materials, timber and labour not included in the quote” was not the subject of a variation provided to the Olivers and signed by them as required by Part 7 of the Domestic Contracts Act 2000. The Tribunal was not satisfied that this work was requested by the Olivers or that section 84 should be applied.
[32] At the hearing, Mr Oliver acknowledged that the granite servery bench supplied and fitted was at his request. This apparently occurred after the “final” invoice had been given to the Olivers dated 20 July 2009 but which the Olivers had not paid. The Tribunal is satisfied that sub-sections 84(4) and (5) apply to this amount of $495 and approves its recovery.
[33] At the hearing, Mr Oliver acknowledged the metal strip in the lounge was supplied at his request to Tony, one of Mr Monaco’s employees. The Tribunal is satisfied that sub-sections 84(4) and (5) apply to this amount of $350 and approves its recovery.
[34] At the hearing, Mr Monaco explained that the sanding and oiling of appearance grade posts was not required under the contract but the re-sanding and re-oiling of appearance grade posts was in response to the owners request in the list of rectification work required by the owners dated 28 July 2009. This was while the Olivers were withholding payment of the final payment but was done by Mr Monaco gratuitously in order to obtain payment by the Olivers. Under these circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that sub-sections 84(4) and (5) apply to this amount of $375 and does not approve its recovery.
[35] On this basis, the Tribunal determined that Mr Monaco was entitled to payment of $9,625 including GST subject to determination of the counter-claim.
The Counter-claim involving the Deck
[36] As stated above, the extent of the rectification alleged to be required increased over time with subsequent increases in the amounts claimed.
[37] The engineers, Messrs Winter and Schwabe, agreed that the existing foundations were unsuitable and would have to be replaced. At the hearing, Mr Schwabe summarised the reasons for their unsuitability as follows:
1The timber was directly in the concrete (foundations);
2The edge between the mass concrete and the timber post was inadequate;
3(Based on the photos provided by Mr Winter) the depth of the piers was inadequate.
[38] Mr Schwabe also said that the deck was out of level but within tolerance. This would be fixed when the deck was demolished and rebuilt.
[39] The timber posts should have been class 5 grade timber but are only class 3 and have to be replaced. The concrete foundations cannot be reused and Mr Winter insists that all of them have to be removed whereas Mr Schwabe says that those under the deck could remain and would not be seen.
[40] Mr Schwabe estimated the cost to Mr Monaco of demolished and rebuilding the deck at $7,470 plus GST. This included Mr Monaco reusing the bearers and joists and de-nailing and re-nailing the flooring using larger nails. If another builder was to demolish and rebuild the deck using all new materials he estimated it would cost $29,770 plus GST. At the hearing the Tribunal was told that Mr Winter estimated this cost at $25,304.45 plus GST.
[41] The Tribunal rejects Mr Schwabe’s estimate of $7,470 plus GST for Mr Monaco to complete this rectification work because given the extent and level of disputation which has occurred, the Tribunal is of the opinion that regardless of how good the work, Mr Monaco is unlikely to satisfy the Olivers and Mr Winter. For this reason the Tribunal had no option but to use an estimate for another builder to demolish and rebuild the deck.
[42] At the hearing, Mr Winter and Mr Schwabe agreed that the bearers and joists could be reused saving approximately $5,000.
[43] Under these circumstances, the Tribunal adopts the figure of $25,304.45 plus GST and discounts it by $5,000 to account for reusing the bearers and joists. A further discount is allowed for not removing all of the foundations under the deck and for de-nailing and re-nailing the flooring using larger nails, where possible. The Tribunal accepts that there will be some wastage in this process and the wasted boards will have to be replaced with new timber. Based on Mr Schwabe’s estimate of $27,000 for all of the timber required for a new deck the Tribunal quantifies this further discount at $4,000 resulting in a figure of $16,304 plus GST for the removal and rebuilding of the deck. This is $8,834 more than Mr Schwabe’s estimate of what it would cost Mr Monaco if he was able to carry out the rectification.
[44] The Tribunal considers that this $4,000 discount is appropriate because on 2 September 2009 Mr Monaco was prepared to return to the site with his engineer and a certifier and undertake whatever rectification was required by them to complete the work to their satisfaction and in accordance with the requirements of the BCA. If Mr Monaco had been allowed to carry out the rectification at that time in that manner this dispute would have been resolved in 2009 and at much less cost to the parties than subsequently has occurred.
[45] The Tribunal considers that Mr Monaco was unreasonably denied access by the Olivers who had a duty to mitigate their damages. In rectifying his defective work Mr Monaco should not have to bear an unreasonable extra burden when he was denied the opportunity to rectify at an earlier time and at a lesser cost.
[46] Mr Schwabe has estimated that the certification of the deck will cost $2,850 plus GST and the Tribunal adopts this figure. However, Mr Monaco had not charged the Olivers for certification of the deck as he wrongly, as it transpired, thought on advice from a certifier that the deck did not require certification and council approval. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that this is a charge which should be paid by the Olivers.
The Counter-claim involving the Pool
[47] Mr Winter argues that according to the contract, the pool was to be 6 metres by 3 metres. The Pool was built 3,220 wide. On the side closest to the deck it is 6,700 and on the other side 4,000. This irregular shape arose because on the right hand side the pool follows the line of the property boundary which is not parallel with the side wall of the house but slopes to the left as it goes towards the rear of the property. The left hand side wall of the pool also could not be rectangular because of the existence of an shed to the left of where the pool was to be constructed.
[48] The Tribunal considers the argument that the shed could have been removed as disingenuous as it was there and was not removed after the pool contract was signed.
[49] The Olivers were living in the premises at all relevant times. Spracon sprayed the pool on 26 March 2009. The Tribunal accepts and finds that on 22 May 2009 the pool shell was installed and its size and shape was final. Despite several requests for rectification including those from Mr Winter in July 2009, the size, shape and location of the pool was not raised as a problem until the Olivers had refused to pay the balance owing and had refused access to the site and the dispute had considerably escalated. In addition, the Tribunal notes and accepts that on 22 May 2009, Mr Monaco spoke to Mr Oliver on site as to how the deck should be built in relation to the pool.
[50] Arising from their discussions on 22 May 2009, the parties agreed to a signed variation to build a resuscitation area on the side of the pool but Mr Oliver then cancelled this variation that evening and decided that the resuscitation area would go on the deck where it was subsequently positioned.
[51] For these reasons the Tribunal finds that, given the unusual shape of the land and the position of the shed, the size, shape and location of the pool was accepted by the Olivers as being in accordance with the contract. Therefore, the Tribunal dismisses the claims for compensation on these grounds.
[52] Mr Winter maintains that the pool should be condemned and removed and replaced. Mr Schwabe disagrees.
[53] The pool was approved by certifier, Steve Ferguson of Sunline Building Approvals, on 24 September 2009 and in a letter dated 3 February 2011 to QCAT, Lindsay Consulting Pty Ltd, Structural and Civil Engineers stated:
“Lindsay Consulting are satisfied that the pool is structurally adequate for its intended purpose and therefore certify the pool shell for both structural integrity and durability.”
[54] Lindsay Consulting went on to say “As such no remedial works are required to the pool structure”.
[55] Despite this certification by an appropriately qualified engineer Mr Winter totally rejected the certification at the hearing and Mr Oliver had apparently obtained a quotation from NCS for $13,900 to rectify the pool. This quote was said to be attached to a statement from Mr Oliver which had been filed late and was not on the Tribunal file. As Mr Monaco objected to both its late filing and its contents the Tribunal was not provided with a copy.
[56] However, on the basis of the certification of the pool by Lindsay Consulting the Tribunal finds that no remedial works are required to the pool structure and, therefore, dismisses the counter-claim in relation to the pool.
The Counter-claim involving the Ancillary Issues
[57] A list of 31 items of complaint was given to Mr Blair Lowrie of the Queensland Building Services Authority who conducted an inspection in the presence of the parties, Messrs Winter and Schwabe and a representative of the HIA on the order of the QCAT on 14 July 2010. Mr Winter subsequently raised an additional item relating to the pool which was added as a second number 31. All 32 items were considered by Messrs Winter and Schwabe at the Experts Conclave and the Tribunal had the benefit of Mr Schwabe’s cost estimates and, at the hearing, it received a copy of Mr Winter’s handwritten comments.
[58] The Tribunal will now deal with those items which have not previously been dealt with in these reasons.
Item 3 – 1.2 metre wide tiled surround.
[59] This issue was not raised in the original defects list and appears to have arisen only when Mr Winter scaled the drawings. It is not mentioned in the contract as being required. This is not a fully in-ground pool and a 1,200mm wide cantilevered wide coping would have resulted in an access problem between the pool and the boundary on the right-hand side and the pool and the shed on the left-hand side. Because of the 1,500mm set back required from the boundary on the right-hand side the pool would have been required to be moved to the left or reduced in length. The Tribunal finds that the 1.2 metre wide tiled surround was not a requirement of the contract and dismisses this claim.
Item 4 – Pool fencing
[60] There are some small maintenance issues with the pool fencing which can be rectified when the deck is rectified. The Tribunal notes that Mr Monaco was prepared to rectify this item but was generally denied access to the site in September 2009 and thereafter.
Item 5 – The deck was to be 10 m x 3 m
[61] The Tribunal finds that the deck was reduced by the size of the resuscitation area on the decision of Mr Oliver as referred to above. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Item 6 – 2.5 mm stainless steel wire handrail to the sides
[62] At the hearing Mr Monaco stated that this was rejected by Council and that he replaced the wire with aluminium walls which were more expensive but he did not seek a variation to cover this additional cost. The Tribunal accepts this explanation which was not contradicted by other evidence and dismisses this claim.
Items 7, 8 and 9
[63] These are not claims.
Items 10, 11, 12 and 13 – swimming pool
[64] These claims have been dealt with above.
Item 14 – the tiling to the pool is substandard
[65] Mr Schwabe agreed with Mr Winter that the tiles should either be redone or the Olivers compensated. He estimated the cost at $3,631 plus GST with which Mr Winter agreed. Mr Monaco, under other circumstances, may have been able to have his tiling sub-contractor return to do this work but that would not be feasible given the intensity of this dispute. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are entitled to this amount by way of compensation.
Item 15 – brackets that secure the aluminium pool fence to the posts
[66] Both Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter agree and estimate the cost to be $250 plus GST. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are entitled to this amount by way of compensation.
Item 16 – the aluminium pool fence brackets are corroding
[67] Both Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter agree and estimate the cost to be $250 plus GST. The pool fence supplier was said to have agreed to rectify these brackets under warranty but because of the time delay arising from this dispute the Tribunal finds that the Olivers are entitled to this amount by way of compensation.
Item 17 – the end panel of glass pool fence has disengaged
[68] Both Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter agree but the Tribunal agrees with Mr Schwabe that this will be rectified as part of the deck rectification. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are not entitled to any further amount by way of compensation.
Items 18 and 19 – the deck size and shape
[69] This has already been dealt with above.
Item 20 – the deck is neither planer nor level
[70] Both Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter agree but the Tribunal agrees with Mr Schwabe that this will be rectified as part of the deck rectification. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are not entitled to any further amount by way of compensation.
Item 21 – there is a hard joint between the deck and the pool surround and an inadequate joint between the deck and the house
[71] Both Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter agree but the Tribunal agrees with Mr Schwabe that this will be rectified as part of the deck rectification. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are not entitled to any further amount by way of compensation.
Item 22 – Aluminium pool fencing instead of 2.5mm wire balustrade
[72] This has already been dealt with above.
Item 23 – Deck staining is defective
[73] Both Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter agree that this will be rectified as part of the deck rectification. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are not entitled to any further amount by way of compensation.
Item 24 – Inappropriate Deck nails have been used
[74] Both Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter agree that this will be rectified as part of the deck rectification. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are not entitled to any further amount by way of compensation.
Item 25 – Termite barrier has not been installed
[75] Both Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter agree that this will be rectified as part of the deck rectification. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are not entitled to any further amount by way of compensation.
Item 26 – The deck balustrade posts are defective
[76] Both Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter agree that this will be rectified as part of the deck rectification. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are not entitled to any further amount by way of compensation.
Item 27 – The Timber bearers and the Deck
[77] This has already been dealt with above.
Item 28 – brackets securing the aluminium balustrade need to be fixed
[78] Both Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter agree and estimate the cost to be $250 plus GST. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are entitled to this amount by way of compensation.
Item 29 – Sliding doors and window need to be removed and reinstalled
[79] Mr Schwabe agrees that if a Form 16 cannot be obtained, this work is necessary. Mr Winter considers this work necessary and both agree with the estimate of the cost to be $1,760 plus GST. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are entitled to this amount by way of compensation.
Item 30 – Window sill and granite servery need to be appropriately installed
[80] Both Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter agree and estimate the cost to be $500 plus GST. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are entitled to this amount by way of compensation.
Item 31 – Blueboard installation unfit for the purpose
[81] Mr Schwabe and Mr Winter could not agree on the rectification of this item as Mr Schwabe considered that the Olivers were asking for a solution which presented another problem. However, he considered it a “small ticket item” which could be rectified for $500. The Tribunal is not aware of Mr Winter’s estimate of the cost and adopts that of Mr Schwabe. The Tribunal finds that the Olivers are entitled to this amount by way of compensation.
New Item 31 – apparent additional defects to the pool
[82] This has already been dealt with above and the Tribunal finds that the Olivers are not entitled to compensation for this item.
CONCLUSION
[83] The Tribunal determined that Mr Monaco was entitled to payment of $9,625 including GST subject to determination of the counter-claim.
[84] The Tribunal determined that the Olivers are entitled to the following for their counter-claim:
Counter-claim involving the Deck $16,304 plus GST
Counter-claim involving the Pool Nil
Counter-claim involving the Ancillary Items
Item 14 $3,631 plus GST
Item 15 $250 plus GST
Item 16 $250 plus GST
Item 28 $250 plus GST
Item 29 $1,760 plus GST
Item 30 $500 plus GST
Item 30 $500 plus GST $7,141
Total Counterclaim $23,445 plus GST
[85] Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Mr Monaco is required to pay Mark and Sally Oliver the amount of $13,820 plus GST of $1,382.00 and, therefore, orders that Mr Monaco pay Mark and Sally Oliver the amount of $15,202 including GST.
0
0
0