My Floor International Pty Ltd v Bronstock Pty Ltd
[2016] QCAT 396
•26 October 2016
CITATION: | My Floor International Pty Ltd v Bronstock Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 396 |
PARTIES: | My Floor International Pty Ltd |
| v | |
| Bronstock Pty Ltd t/as Absolute Homes (Respondent) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO1384-16 |
MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
HEARING DATE: | 29 August 2016 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Adjudicator Anna Walsh |
DELIVERED ON: | 26 October 2016 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
CATCHWORDS: | Contracts – Building – Remedies for Breach – Other Matters – Jurisdiction Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
This Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on 29 August 2016 and the Applicant has now asked for reasons for this decision.
On 15 June 2016 the Applicant filed an Application for a minor civil dispute – minor debt. The Applicant claimed $9,242.30 being progress payments owing for polished concrete floor works undertaken pursuant to a letter of engagement dated 6 October 2015.
On 15 July 2016, the Respondent filed a Response. The Response included allegations that the Applicant had failed to carry out the contracted works to a standard expected in the industry.
The definition of a building dispute in the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (the Act) includes a dispute between contractors relating to the renovation, alteration extension, improvement or repair of a home or part of a home.
On the face of it, the disputed work contemplated by the letter of engagement falls within the definition of a building dispute.
Section 77 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 confers jurisdiction on the tribunal to hear and determine building disputes.
However, s 77(2) provides that an application cannot be made to the tribunal unless there has been compliance with a process established by the commission to attempt to resolve the dispute.
On 8 August 2016, I made directions that the parties provide evidence of compliance with s 77 of the Act or otherwise provide submissions as to the tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
On 19 August 2016, a letter was received from the Respondent stating that to the best of its knowledge the parties had not complied with s 77 of the Act.
The Applicant did not respond to the directions made on 8 August 2016 and accordingly I dismissed the Application for lack of jurisdiction.
0
0
0