Roy v Palmer - [2025] QCAT 344

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Roy v Palmer & Ors [2025] QCAT 344

PARTIES:

REBECCA JANE ROY

(applicant)

v

JORDAN JAMES PALMER

(RESPONDENT)

RILEY & CO BATHROOM RENOVATIONS PTY LTD

(RESPONDENT)

HILTON JAMES PALMER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL168-24

MATTER TYPE:

Domestic Dispute

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

25 August 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member S M Burke

ORDERS:

The Respondent, Jordan James Palmer trading as Riley & Co Bathroom Renovations, is to make payment to the Applicant in the sum of $50,396.40 on or before 22 October 2025.

CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – where builder performed unlicensed building work – where builder did not complete the works – where defective works – where home owner entitled to recover money paid under agreement and damages to rectify and complete works – failure of party to comply with directions – failure of party to deliver any evidence before the Tribunal

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 42, s 77

Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
Cook’s Construction Pty Ltd v SFS 007.298.633 Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 75

Robinson v Harman [1848] Eng R 135

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant, Rebecca Roy, is the registered owner of an apartment at 204/1 Ella Street, Newstead, Queensland. (“the property”).
On 14 January 2024, the Applicant entered into a written contract with the Respondent Jordan Palmer, for and on behalf of Riley & Co Bathroom Renovators. The contract related to bathroom renovation works to be carried out at the property for the contract price of $14,256.00 including GST.
The written contract identified in detail the work to be carried out as follows:
(a)Main bathroom – removal of floor tiles including bedding, removal of skirting tiles, removal of laundry tub, removal of vanity/mirror, removal of shower wall tiles/shower screen, removal of bath, removal of toilet, removal of 2 x exhaust fans. 300 x 600 floor tiles, 200 x 300 shower wall/skirting tiles, 2 x new exhaust fan install. All plumbing for shower, vanity, laundry, re-locate vanity power-point, 100 x 100 tile insert floor waste, install new shower screen, install new vanity, install new shaving cabinet, all silicone, painting, niche (size to be confirmed);
(b)Ensuite – removal of floor tiles including bedding, removal of skirting tiles, removal vanity/mirror, removal of shower wall tiles/shower screen, removal of exhaust fan. 300 x 600 floor tiles, 200 x 300 shower wall/skirting tiles, niche (size to be confirmed), install of new exhaust fan, install of new vanity and shaving cabinet, re-locate power-point, all silicone, shower waste 900mm strip drain, floor waste 100 x 100 tile insert, install shower screen, painting;
(c)Riley & Co will supply all building materials such as villaboard, gyprock, screws, poly, timber, water proofing, aluminium angle, gyprock, top…

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.

Continue reading Roy v Palmer

Details

AGLC: Roy v Palmer [2025] QCAT 344
Case: [2025] QCAT 344
Decision Date: 17 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a dispute between Roy, the homeowner, and Palmer, the builder, who performed unlicensed building work that was incomplete and defective. The matter was brought before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to determine the appropriate remedy for the homeowner's loss. The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was the measure of damages for the builder's breach of contract. The Tribunal had to consider whether the homeowner was entitled to recover the money paid under the agreement and the damages to rectify and complete the works.

The Tribunal found that the builder had performed unlicensed building work and failed to complete the works, resulting in defective and unsatisfactory workmanship. The evidence provided by the homeowner was uncontested, and the Tribunal was satisfied that the builder's work required demolition and rebuilding to comply with proper standards. The Tribunal assessed the damages claimed by the homeowner and determined that the starting point for damages was the sum of $15,031.40, which was the amount the homeowner would have paid for the contract works and variations if the builder had completed the work in a satisfactory manner. However, the Tribunal noted that the statutory framework of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 precluded an unlicensed builder from claiming monetary consideration for performing building work. Nevertheless, the builder could claim a reasonable remuneration for the supply of materials and labour, but not including an allowance for their own labour or profit.

The Tribunal concluded that the homeowner was entitled to recover the amount paid under the agreement and the damages to rectify and complete the works. The builder failed to comply with the Tribunal's direction to provide material, and therefore, the Tribunal assessed the homeowner's claim based on the material provided by the homeowner. The Tribunal ordered the builder to pay the homeowner $50,396.40 on or before 22 October 2025.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent, Jordan James Palmer trading as Riley & Co Bathroom Renovations, is to make payment to the Applicant in the sum of $50,396.40 on or before 22 October 2025.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Further directions were made by the Tribunal on 29 January 2025 relating to the provision of material by both parties of any evidence on which each party intended to rely. It was directed that the matter would be heard on the papers without any further appearances or representation by the parties and that the Applicant would be entitled to a final decision in the event that the Respondent did not comply with the direction to provide material to the Tribunal.Evidence provided by the Applicant As no material has been submitted by the Respondent, in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal on 29 January 2025, the Tribunal proceeds to assess the Applicant’s claim based on the material on which the Applicant relies. The Applicant’s evidence is uncontested despite the Respondent receiving all the material delivered by the Applicant to the Tribunal. I am satisfied that the report prepared by Jess Moreton of Hayman Projects identifies the unsatisfactory standard of workmanship provided by the Respondent. The photographic evidence is indicative of the state of the works at the time the contract was terminated. I am further satisfied, in the absence of any evidence from the Respondent to the contrary, that it was necessary and reasonable that the bathroom renovations carried out by the Respondent required demolition and rebuilding in order to comply with proper standards of workmanship. In the circumstances, it is necessary for the Tribunal to assess the damages claimed by the Applicant.Damages From the outset, in assessing the damages to which the Applicant is entitled it is necessary to ensure that the Applicant is put into the same position she would have been had the contract been properly performed. The starting point therefore is that the Applicant would have incurred the sum of $15,031.40 (for the contract works and two variations) had the works been completed by a licensed contractor in a satisfactory manner in accordance with the contract. The Applicant’s claim for the refund of this amount is not warranted merely on the basis that the Respondent was unlicensed. The statutory framework of s 42(1) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act1991 (“QBCC Act”) specifies that an unlicensed person is prohibited from either entering into a contract to perform building work or actually performing building work. Section 42(3) is said to sterilise any claim which might otherwise be made under the contract or under common law by an unlicensed builder. It provides that a person who carries out building work in contravention of s 42 is not entitled to any monetary or other consideration for doing so. The prohibition in subsection (3) is subject to subsection (4) of s42 which provides that a person is not prevented from claiming a reasonable remuneration for carrying out the building work, but only if the amount claimed is no more than the amount paid by the person in supplying material and labour for carrying out the building work and does not include an allowance for the supply of the person’s own labour and the making of a profit.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.