Roze v Boyd
[2023] QCAT 230
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Roze & Anor v Boyd [2023] QCAT 230
PARTIES:
AIDEN JONATHAN ROZE
DHAY AHMED ALI(applicant)
v
BENJAMINE BOYD Respondent
APPLICATION NO/S:
BDL 109-22, MCD906-21
MATTER TYPE:
Building matters
Minor Civil Dispute
DELIVERED ON:
7 June 2023
HEARING DATE:
7 June 2023
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Favell
ORDERS:
The respondent pay to the Applicant $6203 by 21 June 2023.
CATCHWORDS:
BUILDING CONTRACT – whether work done – whether work defective – where work required rectification – where work was not completed – where replacement work not of the same specification
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld)
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
The applicant entered into a contract with the respondent to build a staircase, which was meant to be childproof.
The contract consisted of quotation given by the respondent to construct the stairs for $5,200.
Contact was made between the parties via an app which allowed interested parties to be in contact with trades persons.
The applicant accepted the quote, and after some delay, the respondent commenced work.
The applicant paid an initial deposit of $2,200 and then a further payment of $1,500, even though the respondent was not at that time, entitled to further payment.
The respondent was meant to commence work by 17 June 2001 but was delayed.
Work was commenced, but on 23 June 2021, the respondent via text indicated he would not be completing the job, nor returning to the site.
The applicant regarded that conduct as a repudiation of the contract.
The applicant sourced quotes from two independent contractors to complete the work.
At that stage, the applicant was advised that the work done by the respondent was defective and it needed to be remedied.
The applicant was advised that the respondent had cause unnecessary damage and structural damage.
The applicant sought to make a claim against the QBCC warranty fund, but the claim was denied because the respondent was not now a licensed builder, the work was not insurable work and the contract was not a fixed price residential contract.
The applicant accepted a quote from Rochele Painting in the sum of $2,145 to fix the structural damage caused by the respondent and repaint.
The applicant also engaged AC stainless balustrading to construct and install a childproof set of stairs.
Those stairs were a completely different design to the flawed design commenced by the respondent.
The cost of the replacement stairs was $6,512.
In my view because the replacement stairs were of a completely different design and of different materials the applicant is not in entitled to the cost of those replacement stairs.
The applicant claimed the cost of rectifying the respondents work and the cost of the replacement stairs, less the respondent’s quote.
In my view, the applicant is entitled to the money paid to the respondent, namely, $3,700 and the cost of rectifying the home because of the structural damage done by the respondent.
That rectification cost was $2,145.
The applicant also claims the following cost of this application in the sum of $358.
In this matter, the applicant has complied with all of the orders made by the tribunal.
The respondent has not complied with all of the orders made by the tribunal and did not file a response.
The respondent refused to partake in any attempt to settle this matter.
In my view of the applicant should be entitled to the filing cost.
The applicant complied with section 77(2) of the QBCC Act before filing the application.
I order the respondent pay the applicant, the money paid by the applicant to him, namely, $3,700, plus the rectification costs of $2,145 plus the filing fee of $358, a total of $6,203.
0
0
0