Paddy v Bennett

In the matter of Paddy v Bennett, the respondent, Mr Bennett, is being sued by the applicant, Mr Paddy, in relation to surface water that Mr Paddy claims is being directed from Mr Bennett’s property onto his property. The dispute between the parties involves whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the case, given that Mr Bennett did not construct the retaining wall and fence at issue in the proceedings. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The central legal issue that the Tribunal was required to decide was whether the dispute between the parties is a building dispute. If it is, the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, as building disputes are dealt with under the Building Act 1975 (Qld). The Tribunal considered whether the retaining wall and fence were constructed by Mr Bennett or if he had engaged a third party to do so. It was not disputed that Mr Bennett was not a licensed builder and did not undertake the construction of the retaining wall and fence. The Tribunal needed to determine whether the issue of water flowing from Mr Bennett’s property onto Mr Paddy’s property constituted a building dispute.

The Tribunal concluded that the dispute between the parties was not a building dispute. The Tribunal found that Mr Bennett did not construct the retaining wall or fence, and there was no evidence to suggest that he had engaged a third party to do so. The Tribunal held that the issue of water flowing from Mr Bennett’s property onto Mr Paddy’s property was not related to the construction of the retaining wall and fence, but rather, to the absence of a groundwater drainage system on Mr Bennett’s property. The Tribunal found that the dispute was not a building dispute and therefore had jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Tribunal ordered that Mr Bennett take steps to address the issue of water flowing from his property onto Mr Paddy’s property. Specifically, the Tribunal ordered that Mr Bennett undertake drainage works on his property and that any works to replace the retaining wall and fence be certified by a qualified engineer. The Tribunal also ordered that Mr Paddy bear 50% of the costs of the proceeding.