Rycai Pty Ltd v Buckley

CITATION: Rycai Pty Ltd v Buckley [2012] QCAT 269

PARTIES:	Rycai Pty Ltd
v
Damien Buckley

APPLICATION NUMBER: BDL367-11

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE: 23 May 2012

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: K Buxton, Member

DELIVERED ON: 28 June 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.     The respondent, Mr Buckley, pay to the applicant, Rycai Pty Ltd, the sum of $6,530.82 being:

a)     Claim of         $5,955.82

b)     Interest of      $   310.00

c)     Filing fee of   $   265.00

               Total               $6,530.82

By 30 July 2012

2.     Each party bear its own costs.

CATCHWORDS: Application for recovery of costs – rectification – defective plumbing work – whether any defence to the claim

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant company, Rycai Pty Ltd, by application filed 21 December 2011 against the respondent, Mr Damien Buckley, sought to recover the sum of $5,955.82.  Mr Buckley is a plumber who carried out plumbing works at the direction of Rycai Pty Ltd at four addresses in Toowoomba during 2009 and 2010.  Rycai Pty Ltd claimed that those works were defective and seeks to recover the sum being the costs it incurred in rectification of those defective works. 

2. In his response filed 11 April 2012 (but not received in full by this Tribunal until 12 June 2012 due to an administrative error by the respondent) Mr Buckley refutes this claim as:

   1.The applicant (or its Director, Mr Weston) has not paid for works at one of the sites (Madison Court);

   2.The applicant (or Mr Weston) had an unlicensed supervisor at the relevant sites whilst the work was undertaken; and

   3.The applicant (or Mr Weston) had an outstanding account with Mr Buckley’s business, Proform Plumbing.

3. Mr Buckley does not deny the allegation in paragraph 4 of Annexure A to the application, that he was asked to rectify works but refused.  Mr Buckley states in his response that he will pay the applicant the amounts left after deducting the Madison Court sum and the debt owed to him which he described as an outstanding account.  He also seeks proof of the site supervisor’s license held by Mr Steve House, the supervisor employed by Rycai Pty Ltd at the relevant time.  Rycai Pty Ltd was the principal contractor engaged by the owners of the various sites for construction and Mr Buckley was engaged by it as a subcontractor for the performance of the plumbing works.

4. The nature of the claim against Mr Buckley is the reimbursement of costs for defective work.  It is not a defence to such a claim that another person on the site was not licensed by the BSA to supervise that site.  It is Mr Buckley’s works, not Mr House’s or Rycai’s work, which is under scrutiny.

5. Further, it is not a defence to the claim that Rycai Pty Ltd may owe Mr Buckley other amounts for debts…