Randall v Domestic Maintenance Pty Ltd

CITATION: Randall and Anor v Domestic Maintenance Pty Ltd [2012] QCAT 266

PARTIES:	Peter Randall Selinda Randall (Applicants)
v
Domestic Maintenance Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: BDL399-10

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE: 18 April 2012

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: William LeMass, Member

DELIVERED ON: 28 June 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    The respondent pay to the applicants the sum of $18,068.00 within 30 days.

CATCHWORDS: Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000, s 44

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Randall

RESPONDENT: Mr and Mrs Jackson

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This matter concerns the construction of paving works upon a concrete slab surrounding a pool at the applicants’ residence at Upper Kedron in Brisbane. 

2. The works have failed catastrophically, can not be repaired and must be removed at substantial cost. 

3. The works render the pool unsafe to be used further necessitating removal. 

4. The nature of the failure of the works is that the slab and paving have sunk below the level of the pool coping to the extent of some 200mm causing substantial cracking, trip hazards and the pool gate to permanently remain unlocked.

5. The applicants contend that the respondent is liable for the repayment of the whole of the contract price for the works and the payment of the costs of removal of the works and replacement of associated works.

6. It is fundamental to understand why the works have failed and whom if anyone should have taken account of the reason for the failure in order to prevent that failure.

Reasons for failure

1. The evidence before the Tribunal universally accepted that the cause of the collapse of the works is at its most basic, the downwards vertical movement of the land directly under the slab as measured against the height of the pool which has remained (more or less) at its original level.

2. There are many hypotheses as to why the ground would move and these are contained in the experts’ reports, however again it is universally accepted that at least a substantial contributing factor is that such ground is uncompacted fill. 

3. The evidence of Mr Beal, engineer, in his report exhibit 2 at page 5 clause 2.1.1 is as follows:

   “Self evidently, the drop in the paving has occurred due to the settlement of the ground supporting the paving relative to non settlement or at least lesser settlement of the pool coping and the pool structure, the latter having been provided with some form of more deeply founded footing system.” 

4. Mr Beal then goes on to outline 5 possible reasons for the ground settlement which may have acted he says either alone or in combination.

5. The evidence of Mr Fox, engineer, at exhibit 9 page 6 paragraph 4.3 is as follows:

   “In my opinion there is no doubt that the ground on which the concourse slab was cast was unstable, and the ground under its own weight would have settled vertically and displaced sideways to the north, irrespective of whether or…