Ramm v Ramm

The case of Ramm v Ramm involved a dispute between Colin and Ashley, who had a contractual agreement for building work at Colin's residence. The work, which was completed in December 2008, involved the rendering and painting of the exterior walls of Colin's residence. Colin alleged that there were defects in the work, which he first became aware of in or around 2010. He filed a claim for damages in 2019. The primary legal issues in this case were whether the claim was time-barred under s 10 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) and whether the claim for a breach of statutory warranty was statute-barred under s 51(a) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1991 (Qld). The court held that the claim was time-barred under s 10 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), as the claim should have been commenced by 2016, but was brought in 2019. Additionally, the claim for a breach of statutory warranty was statute-barred under s 51(a) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1991 (Qld), as the relevant work finished in 2008, and the time limit had passed. However, the tribunal may extend the time to commence proceedings even if the relevant time had passed under s 61 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). The court ordered Colin to make submissions addressing the issue of extending the time limit for his claim for breach of statutory warranty. The court's decision was based on the fact that the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) makes the provision a substantive provision, and the underlying right is extinguished on the expiry of the period of limitation. Express statutory authority is required to revive that right. The court found that s 61 of the QCAT Act is not expressed in sufficiently clear terms to override s 43A of the LA Act.