Rigg-McPherson v Superior Roofing Restorations
[2022] QCAT 196
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Rigg-McPherson v Superior Roofing Restorations [2022] QCAT 196
PARTIES:
MARTINA RIGG-MCPHERSON (applicant)
V
SUPERIOR ROOFING RESTORATIONS (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
BDL176-21
MATTER TYPE:
Building matters
DELIVERED ON:
1 June 2022
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Cranwell
ORDERS:
Superior Roofing Restorations must pay Martina Rigg-McPherson the sum of $1,800 within 28 days of the date of these orders.
CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – where claim for defective or incomplete work
Queensland Civil and Administrative Rules 2009 (Qld), r 14, r 15
Queensland Building and Construction Act 1991 (Qld), s 22, Schedule 1B
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 27 July 2021, Ms Rigg-McPherson filed an application for domestic building disputes form with the Tribunal.
The respondent is Superior Roofing Restorations (‘Superior’). I note that pursuant to r 14 and r 15 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), a proceeding may be brought against a business name whether it is registered or unregistered.
Superior provided a quotation to Ms Rigg-McPherson for the following work:
All gutters and down pipes to be cleaned of all leaves and blockages.
High pressure clean of the roof to remove all dirt mould and debrie (sic).
All rusted roofing screws to be removed and replaced with new roofing screws.
Two whirly birds to be removed.
Apply flashing where whirly birds have been removed.
Remove tin top ridge.
Replace top ridge.
Remove Chimney.
One coat of high quality roof membrane sealer to be applied.
Then two coats of acrylic roof paint is applied in your choice of colour.
The amount quoted was $3,280. I note that this amount is less than the $3,300 threshold for the purposes of Schedule 1B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘the QBCC Act’).
Ms Rigg-McPherson paid Superior $1,800 on 1 March 2021. She has provided evidence of a bank transfer.
Ms Rigg-McPherson provided a roof condition report from the Roof Specialist dated 4 May 2021. That report stated:
Attended site 6 April 2021 to inspect roof that had been repaired/restored by another company.
Unfortunately, the works completed on the roof have not been completed to standard or a tradesman like manner.
More than 20% of the roof has been replaced which requires Building approval and certification, which has not been done by the contractor.
The roof replacement has been completed with second-hand roof sheets which had multiple holes throughout due to battens/screws no lining up.
Roof sheets have been cut too long and laid into the gutter, touching the end of the gutter not within regulation.
Ridge capping has been designed and installed incorrectly and not within regulation.
Tape has been used instead of a correctly designed transition flashing from the main roof to the carport structure.
Roof has had tape installed over the roof to try and stop leaks which is poor tradesman like.
Roof sheets have been cut with a grinder instead of using correct tools to work with colorbond steel. This would have caused rust.
Photographs of the work were attached to the report. Suffice it to say, the work did not appear to be ‘superior’ in any way.
Ms Rigg-McPherson seeks a refund of the $1,800 paid to Superior, plus the amount of $21,950 being the cost of a total roof replacement by the Roof Specialist.
Superior has not filed any evidence in the proceeding.
Section 22 of the QBCC Act implies the following warranty in all building contracts:
The building contractor warrants the subject work will be carried out—
(a) in an appropriate and skilful way; and
(b) with reasonable care and skill.
Having regard to the report of the Roof Specialist, I find that the work completed by Superior was in breach of the implied warranty. Alternatively, I find that work was completed negligently.
It follows that Ms Rigg-McPherson is entitled to recover damages of $1,800, being the amount she paid to Superior for the works.
However, there is no expert evidence that the defective work by Superior required replacement of the entire roof, rather than the parts of the roof affected by the defective work. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that Ms Rigg-McPherson is entitled to the costs of replacing the entire roof.
Ms Rigg-McPherson may have decided to replace the entire roof in the circumstances, but this does not mean that Superior is liable for damages beyond repair of the parts of the roof affected by the defective work. As there is no evidence before me to delineate the costs relating to the parts of the roof affected by the defective work by Superior, I am unable to assess damages in this respect.
Disposition
Superior will be required to pay Ms Rigg-McPherson the sum of $1,800 within 28 days.
0
0
0