Peter Campbell Landscapes v Stormont

[2011] QCAT 79

CITATION:

Peter Campbell Landscapes v Stormont [2011] QCAT 79

PARTIES:

Peter Campbell t/a Peter Campbell Landscapes

v

Delma Stormont

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BDL015-09

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Mr Paul Favell, Member

DELIVERED ON:

7 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

The Tribunal orders that the Respondent pay the Applicant $4,226.05 by 4:00pm on 21 March 2011.

CATCHWORDS:

Application to correct a mistake

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 135

APPEARANCES AND REPRESENTATION:

On the papers

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. The Applicant Peter Campbell trading as Peter Campbell Landscapes makes an application pursuant to section 135 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (“QCAT Act”).
2. A decision concerning the claim for unpaid money and allegations of defective work was delivered on 21 September 2010.  In that decision the Tribunal ordered Delma Stormont, the Respondent, to pay the Applicant the sum of $1,965.33 by 4:00pm on 22 October 2010.
3. In an amended claim the Applicant claimed $5,451.51 as money outstanding under a contract to carry out landscape works at a site situated at 111 Sackville Street, Greenslopes.  The Applicant further claimed $3,178.50 in extra work that was completed beyond the contract including $600.00 for soil and $200.00 for bobcat hire and the sum of $245.00 for filing costs.  The decision noted that the Applicant abandoned the further claim of $1,200.00 and the progress payment invoice claim of 10 August 2009 was varied accordingly, as was the amended claim.
4. The decision also noted that the Respondent had paid the Applicant $3,306.00 which sum he had not taken into account when framing his claim (exhibit 3).  An explanation for the basis of the order is contained in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the decision and is as follows:

“23. Based on the original claim by Mr Campbell and his concession that he had not taken into account a payment of $3,306 when framing his claim (exhibit 3) the claim by the Applicant is $5,451.51 less $3,306 ($2,145.50) plus $917.78 (bobcat and soil extra) namely $3,063.28.  I accept that if it were not for defective work or incomplete work the Applicant would be entitled to the sum of $3,063.28.  I accept that the extra work for the bobcat and soil was requested and the work performed.  The Applicant is entitled to be paid for that work.

24. Much of the difficulty here arises because of the uncertainty in the scope of work because of the relatively vague nature of the contractual documentation.  The Respondent had a view of how the work was to be carried out and what was to be included.  That was not however reflected in the documentation.  Subject to what I have said I am of the view that the work set out in the documentation was done.  Totalling the amounts allowed as discussed above the sum of $1,097.95 should be deducted from the amended claim sum of $3,063.28.  I find that the Respondent should…