Robert James Sternberg t/as Homeworthy Inspection Services v Bielby (No 1) - [2013] QCAT 693

CITATION:

Robert James Sternberg t/as Homeworthy Inspection Services v Bielby (No 1) [2013] QCAT 693

PARTIES:	Robert James Sternberg t/as Homeworthy Inspection Services (Applicant)
v
Ian David Bielby (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCD483-13

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

8 July 2013
Further on the papers Hearing 7 August 2013

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Mc Donald

DELIVERED ON:

30 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. That Mr Bielby return the all original files originally held by Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba to Mr Sternberg within 14 days of this order.

2. That Mr Bielby makes payment to Mr Sternberg in the amount of $6,866 within 90 days.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor civil dispute – Trader dispute –employment relationship – private certifier contracts under the Building Act 1975

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Robert Sternberg

RESPONDENT:

Ian Bielby

REASONS FOR DECISION

The parties had a professional relationship around their private certification practice. This relationship commenced during September of 2010 and ended in unfortunate circumstances somewhere between the 12 July 2011 and 25 July 2011.
Mr Sternberg claims that he subcontracted Mr Bielby as a Building Certifier under the umbrella of his business Homeworthy Inspections Services. He argues upon Mr Bielby’s resignation he refused to repay monies for services for which have not been rendered or return files.
In an amended application, Mr Sternberg claims for costs of 94 inspections not rendered and a desk audit of 35 files which were discontinued without his authorisation, and hence wherein engagement remain on foot and for which he holds continuing liability.
Mr Bielby denies that he was a subcontractor or employee to Mr Sternberg, but operated his own business in a partnership being himself a sole trader of Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba. He contends the files are his own, and that he has undertaken all of the work and is entitled to payment. He contends he has been unpaid for invoices #161 and 164 and is owed $834.
The Tribunal must consider:
a) whether it has jurisdiction in this matter; and
b) the nature of the legal relationship between Mr Sternberg and Mr Bielby needs to be ascertained to determine entitlements to the files and payment.

PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP

Mr Sternberg operated his private certifier’s business from Warwick under the trading name Homeworthy Inspection Services. This business was registered by ASIC to Mr Sternberg, operating as a sole trader. On or about September 2010, Mr Sternberg approached Mr Bielby who was working in the public sector at the time, to commence professional relationship together.
Mr Sternberg contends he offered Mr Bielby the opportunity to work as a subcontractor under the branch of Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba Region. He refers to the email between the parties of 7 September 2010 subject: ‘Offer!’ and in particular to Step 8 of his email which states ‘I will need you (sic) ABN for our sub-contractor status’.
Further he refers to the balance of the email which details the payment arrangements: ‘My proposal is, you can assess the sheds that I have coming in the area to start off with. My fees are fixed for the client and they pay upfront as we go. I will invoice them and pay you as you go with weekly invoices’. The arrangement saw 75% of the assessment and inspection fees fee going to Mr Bielby and the balance to Mr Sternberg.
Mr Sternberg contends that he was a private certifier employer within the meaning of s 138(1) of the Building Act 1975 (the Building Act) and Mr Bielby was his employed building certifier through a subcontracting arrangement. Mr Sternberg claims that the employment relationship was a contract for services where Mr Bielby operated under his own ABN for invoicing Homeworthy and did not invoice clients directly.
Mr Bielby asserts that he was the operator of Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba, and Mr Sternberg in Warwick, and all clients of this entity were his clients.
However, “Homeworthy Inspection Services” is an ASIC registered business name registered solely to Mr Sternberg since 14 November 1995. The ASIC search indicates that Mr Sternberg holds a current registration for the period 23 December 2009 – 23 December 2015. Mr Bielby has provided no evidence of business registration to demonstrate that ownership of Homeworthy Inspection Service Toowoomba Region.
Mr Bielby submits that the aforementioned arrangement referred to by the email of 7 September 2010 related to the period before he was accredited and able to work without supervision. He argues that the absence of taxation superannuation and other employee identifiers is clear evidence that he was not an employee of Homeworthy Inspection Services. He denies that he continued as a subcontractor or employee.
He argued that a partnership was established and that he operated Homeworthy Inspection Services as a sole trader through his own ABN, and that the clients he brought to the business were his clients, and he therefore retained the right to payment and their files. The evidence he relies on to support the existence of a partnership is the application for Insurance to Miramar.
The document filed in the Tribunal dated 15 November 2010, entitled Miramar Construction Professionals Indemnity Proposal Form, signed by Mr Bielby describes the two principals/ partners/ directors and states that there are no employees or subcontractors of the business. Further it states that Mr Sternberg and Mr Bielby were partners for with each part of the business being under the control of the individual partner. This is inconsistent with the evidence submitted by both as to the invoicing arrangements for clients, where this was not within Mr Bielby’s control.
Mr Sternberg claimed listing Mr Bielby on his insurance as a principal was necessary to enable Mr Bielby to undertake pool safety inspections.
Mr Bielby offers this insurance proposal as evidence that the two were partners who operated independent businesses. While this document does raise questions around insurance issues, it is not a contract between the parties specifying terms of the agreement between them. It forms part of the offer and acceptance between the insured and the insurer.
Mr Bielby has provided no copy of any partnership agreement to support his claim. The insurance document is not evidence of the agreement between the parties but between the parties and the insurer. The Terms of the professional arrangement are clearly identified in the emails of 7 September 2010. Greater weight must be placed on this agreement between the parties as evidence of the legal relationship they intended to create by way of offer and acceptance. There is no indication that these terms were altered at any stage during the professional relationship of the parties.
Mr Sternberg states that as sole trader trading under the name of Homeworthy Inspection Services, he never assigned his registered business name to any other party. He denied ever having a partnership arrangement with Mr Bielby and stated that no joint account has existed and no partnership taxation had been prepared. He argued that invoices were rendered to clients under the name and ABN of Homeworthy Inspection Services, a business registered to him as sole trader throughout the period of the professional relationship.
Mr Bielby has issued invoices to Homeworthy Inspection Services from Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba Region in his ABN. It is arguable whether these are valid invoices given that Mr Bielby’s ABN is not registered as Homeworthy Inspection Services. However, it is clear from email exchanges between the parties that payment was remitted directly to Mr Bielby’s personal account in his name.
Mr Bielby submitted a detailed schedule of payments made, and inspections carried out on each file, together with statements of his costs and outlays, GST and tax paid. He argues that this was evidence that Mr Sternberg was not his employer as all costs were met by Mr Bielby’s business, and that Mr Sternberg should bear all these costs if he was his employer. The Tribunal does not accept this submission but finds that this evidence confirms that a subcontract arrangement existed between the parties in accordance with the agreement of 7 September 2012.
It is clear from the evidence that Mr Bielby was not an employee. Mr Bielby continues to rely upon the insurance document which claims that each business was under the full control of each individual partner. In circumstances where Mr Bielby could not invoice clients directly, change the fee or commission to Mr Sternberg, it cannot be stated that he had full control. This suggests that an employment relationship existed which was a contract for services rather than a contract of services.
The Tribunal concludes that Mr Bielby was a sub-contractor to Mr Sternberg’s sole trader business Homeworthy Inspection Services. The Tribunal has jurisdiction under s 12(4)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) to determine this dispute between two traders.

ENTITLEMENT TO PAYMENT/ FILES

Is the applicant engaged under s 138(1) of the Building Act to provide certification functions in the disputed files?

Mr Bielby argues that he was the engaged certifier for Clients of Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba Region clients pursuant to section 138(5) of the Building Act. He claims the clients are therefore his clients.
Mr Sternberg argues he was a private certifier employer for all clients of Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba Region, as the contract for certifying services was between the clients was with Homeworthy Inspection Service (of which he is the sole registered trader). He refers to s 138(1)(b) arguing he subcontracted Mr Bielby to perform certifying functions.
Section 138 refers to the power to contract to perform private certifier functions. It states:
Subject to sections 140 and 141—
(1) (a) a private certifier may enter into a contract to perform private certifying functions; and
(b) a person or public sector entity (a private certifier employer) who employs private certifiers may enter into a contract to provide the services of any of the private certifiers to perform private certifying functions for others.
…
(4) A contract made under subsection (1) is an engagement of the private certifier or certifiers who, under the contract, are to perform private certifying functions.
(5) The person for whom private certifying functions are agreed to be performed under an engagement of a private certifier is the certifier's client.
This provision makes clear that the power to perform the certification activities arises from the contracts for services. Each disputed file relates to contracts where certification services were offered by Homeworthy Inspection Toowoomba, the business entity, and therefore are engagements with the private certifier employer, Homeworthy Inspection Services, given Mr Bielby has no proprietary right over that entity.
It is established legal principle that the nature of a work relationship is determined on the basis of the contractual framework adopted to regulate that relationship, not its underlying reality. The extent of control the contractor has is a crucial consideration in determining an employment relationship[1]. On the present facts, although Mr Bielby asserts full control, he could not invoice clients, change the rate, business name, change locations, and could not be said to have control over the business. An employment relationship existed but it was a contract for services, rather than of services. There is nothing in the legislation that limits a private certifier employer to employment relationships that are contracts of service, (employee) and may be include employers with contracts for services (subcontractors).
[1] Stevens and Gray v Broadribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16.
While Mr Bielby had day to day management of the conduct of the files, the decision in Mason and Cox v Mc Cann makes clear that it is ‘the legal right to control rather than the practical fact of control’.[2]
[2] (1999) 74 SASR438 at 443.
In all files filed in the Tribunal in the disputed matters, the letters of offer were provided on Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba letterhead. They were signed by Ian Bielby, on some occasions this was in the capacity as Manager/ Certifier. In circumstances were Mr Bielby signed as the Private Certifier, this did not make the contract between he and the client. The contracts specify that Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba would perform the services. Therefore in each of the disputed files the client’s contracts were with the private certifier employer and therefore the engagements were with Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba. This entity had no independent ABN. Mr Bielby’s ABN was never used to invoice clients directly, and therefore not on the correspondence sent to clients. He used his ABN to invoice Homeworthy Inspection Services under the terms of the agreement of 7 September 2010. A search of the ASIC register would indicate that Homeworthy Inspection Services was a business registered to Mr Sternberg. It is clear therefore that the engagements were with Homeworthy Inspection Services.
It was this engagement that was purported to be discontinued by Mr Bielby. Mr Bielby, although the appointed certifier did not have the power to perform the certifying functions of the engagement unless he was authorised by Homeworthy Inspection Services. Neither did he have the authority to discontinue the engagement.
As Homeworthy was the engaged private certifier employer under the Building Act, Mr Sternberg is entitled to the original files, and payment. Mr Bielby’s would be entitled to maintain a copy of the files for his professional purposes.

IS PAYMENT OWED?

Whether Mr Sternberg is owed any money under the claim is determined by whether the prepaid inspections have been rendered by Mr Bielby. Mr Sternberg in his amended claim contends 94 prepaid inspections have not been rendered and he claims $110 for each. He further claims that a desk audit is necessary to remedy errors caused by the ineffective discontinuation of engagements.
Mr Bielby contends that he owes nothing to Mr Sternberg, having completed the inspections. He claims he is owed $843 for outstanding invoices. The non payment of these invoices is not in dispute.
Mr Bielby argues that Mr Sternberg has not adequately particularised his amended claim. The Tribunal accepts this submission in part. Certainly, there is no evidence to support that 94 assessments need to be made. While the file reference numbers range between 51 and 94, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that 94 upfront payments were made to Mr Bielby from Homeworthy Inspection Services. Mr Bielby argues that he cannot respond where Mr Sternberg’s evidence is inconsistent and lacking in detail. The Tribunal can therefore make a determination based on the evidence before it.
Where the contracts were with Homeworthy Inspections Services, including Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba Region, the payment belongs to Mr Sternberg as sole trader, trading under that business name. However, there was an agreement between Mr Bielby and Mr Sternberg that Mr Bielby would be a subcontractor and be paid 75% of the invoiced amount for work performed. He invoiced Mr Sternberg upfront, and Mr Sternberg’s submissions indicate that Mr Bielby was paid in most cases within one or two days of billing.
Completed Inspections
Mr Bielby contends he has finalised the following files prior to the breakdown of the professional relationship between the parties:
BA 77               Salco/ Glencoe Rd,
BA 56               GJ Gardner / Kearney St
BA 51               Runge/ Third Avenue (Cracow mine)
BA 64               Tully/ Prince Henry Drive pool safety
BA 59               Stephens / Joann Rd (dwelling and tank)*****
BA 65               Brown/ Patron Cres
BA 66               Daley/ West Rd
BA 67               Death Pool safety
BA 68               Carter/ Shiraz Crt pool safety
BA 72               Widderwick studio/ rumpus
BA 75               Coonan / Handley St
BA 76               DerPoel/ Cook St
BA 80               Skuse / Ranfurly St
BA 89               Nevan/ Friend St
He provided Form 21’s final inspection certificates or pool safety certificates by way of evidence of finalisation in each of these matters. He claims Mr Sternberg has no entitlement to a refund in these matters. The Tribunal accepts this submission noting that work was completed under the terms of the arrangement between Mr Sternberg and Mr Bielby before the relationship was severed. There is no claim for the above 14 files completed within the terms of the agreement.
Files Continued under Complete Residential Building Approvals
Mr Bielby relied on the documentation he issued to clients and local council around his fresh engagements to claim that Mr Sternberg has no entitlement to payments for which he continued and completed as certifier with Complete Residential Building Approvals. For each client, a Form 22 notice of discontinuance has been issued on 28 July 2011. Mr Sternberg contends they remain his engagements being invalidly discontinued without his authority.
These files are identified as:
BA 94    Metromax/Daley/Stark Rd;
BA 93    JJ Building Services/Noonan/Ibis Crt;
BA 92    JJ Building Services/Hamlet/Barrymount
BA 88    Smith/Weetwood Dr 28/7/11
BA 87    JJ Building Services/Mackenzie
BA 84    Opulance Homes/O’Grady
BA 86    Peter Betros/Kuhls
BA 76    TJS/Glenco Rd
BA 63    Rametta/Gegham Station Rd
BA 52    Thorne/Willara Crt
Mr Sternberg asserts that only parties to the engagement can discontinue the engagement of the certifier, and this has been done without his authority as sole proprietor of Homeworthy. Further, s 144(2) provides that a discontinuation notice does not take effect until all parties to the engagement have been given the notice in the approved form. The Tribunal accepts Mr Sternberg’s evidence that Homeworthy Inspection services were not notified until receiving a copy of Mr Bielby’s affidavit of 10 April 2013.
Mr Bielby’s contention that he was the engaged certifier under s 138(1) cannot stand as the contracts for these engagements were between Homeworthy Inspection Services, the business and the client. Mr Bielby has signed the contracts for a number of engagements as Manager/ Building certifier under Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba’s banner. He held out that he had authority as Manager to sign in the businesses name under their letterhead. The contract remains between Homeworthy and the clients.
Mr Bielby contends that he issued the notices of engagement in his name signed by himself, not Mr Sternberg, and therefore were not Mr Sternberg’s engagements. This is not consistent with the powers to exercise certifying functions given by s 138 of the Act, which gives the contracting party the power to exercise functions. Mr Bielby was never party to the contract between the clients and Homeworthy. Irrespective of whether Mr Bielby was an employee or subcontractor or manager of Homeworthy, it was the business entity with which the client had the agreement. Mr Bielby could not disengage where he was not a party to the contract. His signature as manager or certifier has no bearing as he is not a party to the contract.
As these clients have been re-engaged to Complete Residential Approvals, they have two certifiers engaged.
Mr Sternberg’s payment confirmation submitted as a counterclaim indicates that Invoices were issued by Mr Bielby to Mr Sternberg for payment and paid for upfront as follows:
BA 94    Metromax/Daley/Stark Rd; paid to Mr Bielby 30/5/11
BA 93JJ Building Services/Noonan/Ibis Crt; Not paid or invoiced (in submissions in reply Mr Sternberg accepts this was paid)
BA 92    JJ Building Services/Hamlet/Barrymount, paid 27/2/11
BA 87    JJ Building Services/Mackenzie paid to Mr Bielby 23/6/11
BA 88    Smith/Weetwood Dr paid to Mr Bielby 15/6/11
BA 84    Opulance Homes/O’Grady paid to Mr Bielby 12/5/11
BA 86    Peter Betros/Kuhls paid to Mr Bielby 28/5/11
BA 76    TJS/Glenco Rd
BA 63    Rametta/Gegham Station Rd: paid to Mr Bielby on 2/2/13
BA 52    Thorne/Willara Crt; paid to Mr Bielby 12/11/10

Mr Sternberg raises concerns about the manner in which Ms Smith’s business was shifted between Homeworthy Inspection Services and Mr Bielby’s Complete Residential Services. He refers to correspondence from Mr Bielby to Ms Smith dated 15 August 2011, wherein Mr Bielby stated he was ‘now trading under Complete Residential Building Approvals and no longer working as Homeworthy Inspection Services. All fees have been paid previously and will roll over and a new decision notice will be issued’. The Tribunal agrees with Mr Sternberg’s contention that this statement leads the owner to wrongly consider Mr Bielby had proprietary ownership in the name of Homeworthy Inspection Services, and a right to disengage from the contract.
Mr Sternberg further makes the point that Complete Residential Building Approvals was not a registered business for 6 months, and that this was a breach of Mr Bielby’s interest to comply with the public interest provisions in the arose of conduct. Such a consideration is outside the terms of the Tribunal’s consideration in this minor civil dispute between traders.
The evidence provided by Mr Bielby indicates that services have been rendered in these matters, albeit by a fresh entity under Mr Bielby’s trading name.
The terms of the engagement which bound work under the arrangement was the 75-25% terms as part of the initial agreement, and should continue to bind the parties. Mr Sternberg is entitled to 25% of the fees on these matters. These have been paid as above into Mr Sternberg’s account by his own evidence. There is no further claim for inspections on these matters where the work was performed and each party was duly paid the agreed amount.
However, Mr Sternberg contends that as he maintains liability for them he needs to audit the files for his own protection. The Tribunal accepts that these files will need to be audited. In the absence of alternate expert evidence the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Catchpole that this will be at a cost of $110 per hour for $3 hours. The Tribunal orders payment in the sum of $3,300 for audit of these 10 files.
Discontinued Files
Mr Bielby provided evidence that the following clients were purported to be discontinued under Form 22 issued by Ian Bielby. The Tribunal understands that Mr Bielby did not continue private certifying work in these matters. His sworn evidence indicates that these engagements were GJ Gardner Homes, Metricon Homes Queensland, TJS Construction Pty Ltd trading as Suncrest Homes. He has identified the following files as discontinuations, again all issued on 28 July 2011:
BA 59 Qcroft/Stephens – file 51 was paid under invoice 119 on 21/12/11
BA 61 Qcroft/Southgate – file 61 was paid under invoice #130 on 1/2/11
BA 70 TJS/Jackson – file 70 was invoiced under #149 and paid on 7/4/11
BA 78 TJS/Opperman invoice #149 was paid on 7/4/11
BA 79 Qcroft/Akol – Camira Close invoice #153 was paid 5/5/11
BA 81 Qcroft/Wallace – Steadman St invoice #152 was paid 21/4/11
BA 82 Qcroft/Ansesty – Cawdor rd invoice #156 was paid 27/5/11
Metricon continued their engagements in all but one matter, however, issues arose at a later time resulting in discontinuation of Complete Residential Approvals.
BA 85 Metricon/Wodalla invoice #160 was paid 10/6/11. Mr Bielby claims in his affidavit of 10 April 2013, that he had to discontinue due to a lack of communication and issues on these jobs. A notice of discontinuance of 6/10/11 declares Complete Residential Building Approvals reason for discontinuance ‘certifier withdrawal due to issues that cannot be resolved with builder’. He effectively discontinued the second engagement of Complete Residential Building Approvals, however, Homeworthy’s engagement remained on foot.
Further, Mr Bielby discontinued with Metricon’s Rangeview Drive, BA 73. He was paid under invoice #144 on 11/3/11. He discontinued Complete Residential Building Approvals citing “BSA decision” as the reason for discontinuance. He effectively discontinued is own appointment on 23/1/12, but the Appointment of Homeworthy remained on foot.
In BA58 Metricon/Gilchrist Av, the builder advised by email that their client was not proceeding with the build by correspondence of 11/8/11 from Vicki Wisley to Mr Bielby. He invoiced #120 and was paid for this on 17/12/10.
Mr Bielby’s submissions in reply provide a comprehensive statement of the status of inspections and indicate that no or no final inspections have occurred in the discontinued files noted at paragraph 50 of these Reasons. Further, a final certificate has not been issued in BA 76 at Cook St. In each of these matters Mr Bielby has been paid by Mr Sternberg. Mr Bielby contends that Mr Sternberg is not entitled to payment as he was never the engaged certifier. The Tribunal does not accept this submission. The engagement with Homeworthy endures as private certifier employer. In each of these matters, as the original discontinuation was invalid, Mr Sternberg is entitled to inspection fees in the amount claimed.
The evidence before the Tribunal suggests that 10 sites have not rendered final inspections that have been paid upfront. Some of these are not continuing with building on the site. However, as the terms of the arrangement are not fulfilled, Mr Sternberg is entitled to refunded payment. He claims $110 per site being owed $1,100 in the above matters.

EVIDENCE OF MR CATCHPOLE

Mr Catchpole provided written and oral evidence to the Tribunal regarding the process of building certification and functions.
Mr Bielby states that little weight can be provided to Mr Catchpole’s evidence because there is a conflict of interest wherein Mr Catchpole, who has a longstanding personal friendship with Mr Sternberg, had been informed by that Mr Bielby was an employee, and his report is under the assumption of misinformation and the Tribunal should disregard his report. The Tribunal notes Mr Bielby’s concerns regarding Mr Catchpole’s evidence. However, the balance of Mr Catchpole’s evidence to the Tribunal was not the provision of fact beyond pointing out the operation of the legislative scheme regulating building certification.
In essence, Mr Catchpole has largely provided legal submissions. In this regard, Mr Catchpole was assisting the Tribunal. His expertise in assisting the Tribunal with regard to compliance with the Building Act is not undermined by any pre-existing personal relationship.
However, the Tribunal has relied upon Mr Catchpole’s evidence in determining costs of desk audit. Mr Sternberg asserts that he remains liable for the files that have been ineffectively discontinued. The Tribunal would agree with this assertion. Mr Sternberg argues that the files for which he continues to hold responsibility will need to be audited to check for accuracy, completeness that all approvals have been obtained and comply with planning scheme requirements. Further he argues that he will need to do an archive review council as public records may need to be remedied.
He relies on the expert opinion of Mr Catchpole, who suggests that there council records which do not have supporting documentation may need the lodgement of supporting documents to ensure compliances, and that they have two certifiers engaged to do the same work, given the unlawful discontinuance Based on Mr Catchpole’s recommendation he argues 3 hours for review of each file would be necessary.
Mr Bielby although objecting to this evidence has provided no alternate evidence to the Tribunal. In the absence of alternate expert evidence the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Catchpole that this will be at a cost of $110 per hour for $3 hours. The Tribunal Orders payment in the sum of $3,300 for audit of these files.

COSTS

Mr Bielby seeks payment of his invoices of $834. Invoices #161 and #164 for DMC Anzac Av and Friend in that amount are not disputed.
He also seeks costs of $4,760 on the basis that Mr Sternberg’s claims are vexatious. He claims the costs of associated with a BSA audit and his attendance at QCAT proceedings.
Mr Sternberg argues that the parties should bear their own costs in the proceedings, yet his amended claim seeks costs for witness fees, registered post and respondent’s response.
The starting point in section 100 of the QCAT Act is that parties bear their own costs The Tribunal does not accept that Mr Bielby’s submission that Mr Sternberg’s primary claim is vexatious in any way. Neither party have provided any submissions to argue that their claim to costs is in the interests of justice (s 102 of the QCAT Act) and accordingly both parties’ claims to costs are dismissed.
Under the terms of the subcontracting agreement Mr Sternberg agreed to pay the annual Insurance premium for Mr Bielby. He has no entitlement to re-imbursement.

ORDERS

This is a minor civil dispute within the meaning of Schedule 3 of the QCAT Act.
The Tribunal may make an order requiring a party pay the stated amount.
Tribunal is empowered to make 2 orders under s 13 of the QCAT Act.
The Tribunal has the jurisdiction under s 13(2)(iv) and (v) to order ‘a party to a proceeding to return goods that relate to the claim and are in the party’s possession or control to a stated person’.
The Tribunal determines that Mr Bielby owes Mr Sternberg for inspections not rendered in the amount of $1,100.
Further, Mr Bielby owes Mr Sternberg $6,600 for a desk audit of files ineffectively discontinued; less a credit of $834 owed by Mr Sternberg for invoices # 161 and 164.
The Tribunal Orders:
1. That Mr Bielby return the all original files originally held by Homeworthy Inspection Services Toowoomba to Mr Sternberg within 14 days of this order.
2. That Mr Bielby makes payment to Mr Sternberg in the amount of $6,866 within 90 days.