Rosman v Toth - [2025] QCAT 304

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Rosman v Toth [2025] QCAT 304

PARTIES:

NICK ROSMAN

(applicant)

v

LASZLO TOTH

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

BDL296-23

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 July 2025

HEARING DATE:

29 November 2021

HEARD AT:

Hervey Bay

DECISION OF:

Member Carrigan

ORDERS:

The Tribunal orders Laszlo Toth to pay to Nick Rosman the amount of $80,541.29 on or before 4.00 pm on Monday, 25 August 2025.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – CONSTRUCTION OF PARTICULAR CONTRACTS AND IMPLIED CONDITIONS – OTHER MATTERS – where parties entered into a domestic building contract – where builder removed tiles from the kitchen floor – where removal of tiles exposed asbestos material – where existence of asbestos material not known to the parties prior to the removal of the tiles – whether a latent defect – where builder continued removing tiles without any enquiry or investigation into the condition of the flooring – removal of tiles caused asbestos contamination to interior and external areas of the property – claim for compensation and damages for asbestos contamination

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77, Schedule 1B, Schedule 2

Eko Investments Pty Ltd v Austruc Construction Ltd (2009) NSWSC 208

Nissen & Anor v Jarotech Pty Ltd (2012) QCAT 307
Owners of Strata Plan 50946 v Multiplex Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd (2006) NSWSC 377
Pullen v Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd (1993) 1 VR 27
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850

Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

In these proceedings Nick Rosman (‘the Applicant’) claims damages of $76,400.00 from Laszlo Toth (‘the Respondent’).
The Applicant says that the Respondent was hired to complete renovations to the bathroom, build sliding door wardrobes in the bedrooms, renovate the kitchen, construct new footings, paint and build an extension at the property.

Background Facts

The Applicant is the owner of domestic residence in the central coast area in Queensland.
The Respondent is a licenced builder.
On 19 March 2023 the Applicant and the Respondent signed a written contract[1] to complete renovations to the Applicant’s residence. The contract contains a description on the building work to be completed on a labour rate basis as set out below:
(a)the Respondent’s hourly rate is $67.50;
(b)the hammer hand hourly rate is $45.00;
(c)for a 40 hour week the rate is $4,500.00 including GST;
(d)the Respondent is not providing any materials; and
(e)the Respondent’s cost excluded all electrician or plumber costs or any materials.
[1]Written contract is attached to the Respondents Response filed 24 January 2024 at exhibit E2-3.
The written contract also specified in respect of the Respondent:
For my labore cost I’m offering the high standard quality on all part of my workmanship. What I undertaken, will provide you with not 7 years and 3 months as QBCC standard, but total…

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 Rosman v Toth 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: [2025] QCAT 304
Decision Date: 21 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nick Rosman engaged Laszlo Toth to renovate his property, entering into a domestic building contract. The renovation involved removing tiles from the kitchen floor, which led to the discovery of asbestos material. This was unknown to both parties before the tiles were removed. The removal of these tiles caused asbestos contamination within and outside the property, leading to a claim for compensation and damages. The case before the Tribunal was to determine whether the asbestos constituted a latent defect and to assess the liability of the builder for the contamination caused.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the asbestos discovered during the renovation constituted a latent defect, and if so, whether the builder was negligent in continuing to remove the tiles without investigating the condition of the flooring. The Tribunal had to examine the terms of the domestic building contract, the nature of latent defects, and the standard of care expected of the builder in such circumstances. It also needed to consider whether the builder's actions breached any implied conditions under the contract and whether the contamination resulted in compensable damages.

The Tribunal found that the asbestos did indeed constitute a latent defect, one unknown to both parties prior to the renovation. It determined that the builder, Laszlo Toth, had a duty to investigate and address such latent defects before proceeding with the renovation work. The Tribunal held that Toth failed to meet the required standard of care by not investigating the condition of the flooring, which led to the asbestos contamination. Consequently, the Tribunal found Toth liable for the damages caused by the contamination and ordered him to compensate Rosman in the amount of $80,541.29, to be paid by a specified date.

The Tribunal concluded that the builder was liable for the damages resulting from the asbestos contamination and ordered Laszlo Toth to pay Nick Rosman the sum of $80,541.29 by 4.00 pm on Monday, 25 August 2025. This decision underscores the importance of due diligence and the standard of care expected in domestic building contracts, particularly when dealing with potentially hazardous materials.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders Laszlo Toth to pay to Nick Rosman the amount of $80,541.29 on or before 4.00 pm on Monday, 25 August 2025.

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.