Rycai Pty Ltd v Buckley
[2012] QCAT 269
•28 June 2012
| 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Further, it is not a defence to the claim that Rycai Pty Ltd may owe Mr Buckley other amounts for debts differently incurred. Mr Buckley has not advanced any property particularised counter application and there is insufficient material on the file for this Tribunal to make any determination in relation to whether money is owed by Rycai Pty Ltd to Mr Buckley. In any event, any such sums would not seem properly to be capable of being set off against claims for rectification of defective works. Mr Buckley is at liberty to pursue such a claim separately against Rycai Pty Ltd.
Finally, Mr Buckley alleges that the claim for rectification of defective works on the Madison Court site has been met by the owner and Rycai Pty Ltd is not therefore the proper claimant for that relief. However, if Rycai Pty Ltd, as the principal contractor, is liable to reimburse the home owners (in that case Mr and Mrs Delbridge) for the defective works then the Madison Court claim ought be included as a proper loss incurred by Rycai or for which Rycai has become liable as a result of the actions of Mr Buckley.
In any event, Mr Weston’s affidavit in support of Rycai Pty Ltd’s claim sets clearly that Rycai Pty Ltd engaged an alternative plumber, Ruben Taylor Plumbing & Gas, for each of the rectification works, including Madison Court, and thereby incurred a liability to pay that plumber for those invoiced sums incurred in rectifying Mr Buckley’s work. There is nothing in Mr Buckley’s material which causes this Tribunal to doubt or go behind Mr Weston’s sworn affidavit in that regard.
The invoiced sums total $5,955.82. Despite demand those sums remain unpaid. This Tribunal is satisfied to the civil standard that the sums were incurred by the applicant to rectify works undertaken by the respondent which were defective and therefore not carried out with adequate care and skill. The respondent, Mr Buckley, should reimburse the applicant, Rycai Pty Ltd, for those rectification works.
The Tribunal also allows the claim for interest on that sum at 10% per annum for 190 days since the application was filed, totalling $310.00, together with the filing fee of $265.00.
The applicant’s claim for costs is refused on the basis that this application does not contain any element which would justify departure from the strong contra indication against the award of costs contained in section 100 of the QCAT Act. Each party will bear its own costs.
2
0
0