Robert Hayler v Jennie Hart - [2013] QCAT 252

CITATION:

Robert Hayler v Jennie Hart [2013] QCAT 252

PARTIES:	Robert Hayler (Applicant)
v
Jennie Hart (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BDL114-12

MATTER TYPE:

Building Matters

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2013

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Bevan Hughes, Member

DELIVERED ON:

29 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The counter-application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING – Domestic Building Dispute – parties to contract – unwritten variations – no order for joinder – privity

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000, sections 9, 84 and Schedule 2
HNT Civil Constructions v. Mahamoud [2013] QCAT 36
Lida Build Pty Ltd v. Miller (No.2) [2010] QCAT 431
Ross v. Rangel [2004] QCCTB 98

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Robert Hayler appeared in person

RESPONDENT: Jennie Hart appeared in person

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is this Application about?

On 29 July 2010, Damien Hayler and Jennie Hart entered into a Residential Building Contract. Under the Contract, Mr Damien Hayler was to perform building work on Mrs Hart’s property located at 63 Russell Drive, Redbank Plains.
Mr Robert Hayler is the applicant and Mr Damien Hayler’s father. He claims that Mrs Hart owes $5,000 under the Contract plus $5,269 for additional work not included in the Contract.
Mrs Hart denies that she owes these amounts on the grounds that she did not agree to them and that they were not completed. She also counter-claims an amount of $31,090 as damages for breach of the Contract.

Is Mr Robert Hayler entitled to the Contract balance?

In his Application filed with the Tribunal on 28 February 2012, Mr Robert Hayler states that he wants the Tribunal to make an order for Mrs Hart “to pay the balance owing on Contract works $5000”.
During the hearing, Mr Robert Hayler and Mrs Hart each tendered a separate copy of “the Contract”. Mr Robert Hayler confirmed that he was claiming under the Contract he tendered. Both documents are dated 29 July 2010 and signed by Damien Hayler and Jennie Hart. Mr Robert Hayler is not a signatory to either document.
Even if I accept the document tendered by Mr Robert Hayler as the “Contract”, the parties to that Contract are Damien Hayler and Jennie Hart. Mr Robert Hayler is not a party to that Contract.
Mr Robert Hayler claimed that before the Contract was signed, he and Mrs Hart agreed on price and that Mr Damien Hayler would perform the work. Mr Robert Hayler adduced no evidence to support this, either by oral testimony from those alleged to be present including his wife and Mr Damien Hayler, or any written evidence such as quotes or estimates.
Mr Robert Hayler did claim that the cheque for the deposit of $10,000 was given to his wife. However, there was no evidence of to whom the cheque was made payable. I am not satisfied that the mere delivery of the cheque to Mr Robert Hayler’s wife is evidence of a Contract between Mr Robert Hayler and Mrs Hart. There are…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Robert Hayler v Jennie Hart and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QCAT 252
Decision Date: 29 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Hayler initiated legal action against Jennie Hart in relation to a domestic building dispute. Hayler, the original builder, claimed that Hart, the homeowner, failed to pay the full contract price for the construction of a house. Hart, in turn, filed a counter-claim against Hayler, alleging defects in the construction and seeking compensation for the necessary repairs. The matter was brought before the court to determine the respective liabilities of the parties and the validity of the claims and counter-claims.

The court was tasked with addressing several legal issues, including whether there were any unwritten variations to the original contract, the extent to which Hart could claim damages for defects, and whether there was a valid basis for joining a third party to the proceedings. A central issue was the principle of privity of contract, which restricts claims to parties directly involved in the original agreement. The court had to determine if there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the contract had been varied outside its original terms and if such variations were binding on the parties.

In examining the evidence, the court found no clear proof of unwritten variations to the original contract. The court also ruled that the principle of privity of contract applied, thereby precluding any claims against third parties not involved in the original agreement. Consequently, the court dismissed Hayler's application for the full contract price and Hart's counter-application for damages. The court's decision was based on the absence of documented variations and the inapplicability of claims against non-contracting parties. The court emphasised the importance of written agreements and the limitations imposed by the doctrine of privity.

The court dismissed both the application and the counter-application, thereby affirming the original contractual terms and the rights and obligations of the parties as they stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The counter-application is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.