Scott v Maycock

[2010] QCAT 499

CITATION: Scott v Maycock [2010] QCAT 499

PARTIES:	Graham Scott
v
Mark Maycock trading as M & S Maycock

APPLICATION NUMBER:   BD321-06

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE:     1, 2 and 3 February 2010 and  8, 9 and 15 April 2010

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: M Howard  Member

DELIVERED ON: 11 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:     

ORDERS MADE:

1.     That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $33,357 by 19 November 2010.

2.     That the applicant file and serve submissions in relation to costs by 8 November 2010.

3.     That the respondent file and serve submissions in relation to costs by 29 November 2010.

4.     That the issue of costs be determined on the papers.

CATCHWORDS :  Building contract dispute-  where Homeowner had excavated and extended house - where inadequate pole embedment

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Mr M Pope of Counsel for the Applicant
RESPONDENT:	Mr A Collins of Counsel for the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Part A: The Background

The Application

1.This is an unusual and factually complex case involving many allegations of breaches of a building contract which are said to warrant demolition of the house and rebuilding of the house some ten years after construction and handover.

2.In late 1999, the applicant, Mr Scott, (referred to as the applicant, the Homeowner or Mr Scott) approached the respondent about constructing a pole home. Mr Maycock (referred to as the respondent, the Builder or Mr Maycock) showed him concept plans and prepared some specifications embodying a quote. The parties entered into a fixed price contract dated 21 December 1999. The Builder was to construct a pole home for Mr Scott for the consideration of $102,045. Working Drawings dated 27 January 2000 were obtained from Building and Design Services (BDS). Rymark Engineers prepared the soil test report and certain specifications, and subsequently, certified engineering requirements. Construction took place between about March and June 2000. Handover occurred in late June 2000 with all local authority certificates. Since that time, Mr Scott and his family have resided in the home.

3.Over the next few years, Mr Scott made various complaints to Mr Maycock about the house. Some early complaints included separation of the shower tray and ensuite wall and cracked tiles and walls. Other complaints were made about the extent of movement of the house during strong winds; the degree of vibration of the house caused by normal household activities; the verandah swaying; movement of the main pole in the centre of the home which passes through the main living area timber floor causing an uneven gap around it; and the need for repair of bracing under the house. He attributed most of the problems to what he considered was significant movement of the house. He says that the respondent was generally dismissive of his complaints, although he acknowledges that Mr Maycock or his employees attended to some of them. At this stage, Mr Maycock referred the matter to the Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA), he…