Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Williams - [2024] QCAT 571

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Williams [2024] QCAT 571

PARTIES:

OWNIT HOMES PTY LTD

(applicant)

v

MARK WAYNE WILIAMS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL185-23

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 December 2024

HEARING DATE:

5 July 2024

HEARD AT:

On the Papers

DECISION OF:

Member Pearce

ORDERS:

1. The respondent shall pay to the applicant the amount of $41,880.01 within 28 days of the date of this order.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING DISPUTE – allegations of defective work, unlicensed work and work in breach of contract what is “necessary” and “reasonable” – mitigation of loss

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act1991 (Qld), s 77

Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 63 ALJR 210

British Westinghouse Electrical and Manufacturing Co ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673

Payzu Limited v Saunders [1919] 2 KB 581

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

This case involves a dispute regarding a building contract. The Contract was entered into on 21 June 2022. The respondent was engaged to undertake some bricklaying on the lower floor of the construction of a house on a domestic building site. Work commenced on 21 June 2022 and was completed on 16 August 2022. On this date the agreement was terminated by the applicant.
The applicant paid the respondent a total of $8,181.52. The amount payable under the agreement was $14,632.66 including GST plus an additional $3,000.00 for tight access.
The applicant claims the respondent’s work is defective, the respondent was advised of this and appears to accept this as per an email from him dated 6 July 2022. The bricklaying was found to be non-compliant with code in many areas and as a result was required to be pulled down and removed from the work site. The entire job was to be re-done. The applicant withheld the balance of payment. The respondent then failed to remove the works and as a result the applicant formally terminated the contract in writing on 16 August 2022.
During the course of negotiations about rectification works it was discovered that the respondent did not in fact hold a QBCC licence and had used the licence details of another tradesman. It is unclear under what circumstances this occurred.
Due to the delays caused by the respondent not removing the substandard works the applicant incurred additional expenses due to the delay caused.
A directions hearing was held on 12 December 2023 and the respondent was ordered to file a response by 9 January 2024. The applicant was to file requested materials by 6 February 2024.
The directions specifically state that should the respondent not file a response, the applicant may be entitled to a final decision. The respondent failed to file anything and as such this matter shall be determined by the Tribunal with the material before it.

The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

The Tribunal…

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.

Continue reading Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Williams

Details

AGLC: Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Williams [2024] QCAT 571
Case: [2024] QCAT 571
Decision Date: 2 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Williams, the applicant, Ownit Homes Pty Ltd, sought relief in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the respondent, Williams, alleging defective workmanship, unlicensed work, and breaches of contract. The dispute originated from a residential building project where Ownit Homes claimed that Williams failed to deliver work that met the contractual standards and violated licensing requirements.

The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation of the terms "necessary" and "reasonable" in the context of the contractual obligations and the extent to which Ownit Homes mitigated their losses post-breach. The court had to determine whether Williams' actions constituted a breach of contract and, if so, the appropriate remedy. Additionally, the court considered whether Ownit Homes took reasonable steps to mitigate their losses following the alleged breaches.

The court found that Williams did indeed breach the contract by performing work that was not in accordance with the specifications and without the required licenses. The court emphasised that the term "necessary" in the contract referred to actions that were essential for the completion of the work to the required standard, while "reasonable" referred to actions that a prudent person would undertake in the circumstances. The court held that Williams' actions did not meet these standards, leading to a breach of contract. Furthermore, the court noted that Ownit Homes had taken reasonable steps to mitigate their losses by engaging another contractor to rectify the defects.

The court ordered that Williams pay Ownit Homes the sum of $41,880.01 within 28 days of the order date, reflecting the cost of rectifying the defective work and associated losses.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent shall pay to the applicant the amount of $41,880.01 within 28 days of the date of this order.

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.