Sheppard v Brad van Weezep

[2013] QCAT 54

CITATION: Sheppard v Brad van Weezep [2013] QCAT 54

PARTIES:	Mr Anthony Sheppard
v
Brad van Weezep Building t/as Project Design Concepts

APPLICATION NUMBER: BDL339-11

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Senior Member

DELIVERED ON: 4 February 2013

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:      1.    Application for reopening/renewal refused.

CATCHWORDS: RENEWAL – where claim for rectification of defective work – where builder did not engage in tribunal process – where only order available to tribunal was rectification – where builder did not comply with order – whether grounds for renewal

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. On 7 June 2012, I ordered that Brad van Weezep rectify certain work at Mr Sheppard’s home at Southport. On 10 October 2012, Mr Sheppard applied to renew that decision because there were problems implementing the terms of the decision. Mr van Weezep refused to attend to the rectification so Mr Sheppard engaged other contractors to do the work. Mr Sheppard wanted to amend the decision to claim costs of rectification.

2. Mr van Weezep did not file a response to Mr Sheppard’s claim. He did not attend the compulsory conference ordered by the tribunal. He did not attend any directions hearing.

3. At the directions hearing on 2 May 2012, I asked Mr Sheppard whether he thought that Mr van Weezep would comply with an order of the tribunal to rectify the work. Sensibly, Mr Sheppard said that he did not think so.

4. I then had a conversation with Mr Sheppard about an alternative order that the tribunal might make. I invited him to obtain a quote from a third person for the rectification work. The transcript of the directions hearing shows that I mentioned this option to Mr Sheppard at least four times.

5. I made a direction allowing Mr Sheppard to file further material in support of his claim. The transcript of the directions hearing leaves me in no doubt that Mr Sheppard understood that the further material included a quote, and that intended to obtain one.

6. Mr Sheppard did file further material on 9 May 2012. He did not include a quote, I had no option but to order that Mr van Weezep attend to the rectification work.

7. Mr Sheppard could have asked for, and obtained, a monetary order from the tribunal. He did not provide the information that enabled the tribunal to do that.

8. Mr Sheppard could have applied for a renewal of the decision when it became apparent that Mr van Weezep would not comply with my order if, by then, he had obtained the quote to which I had earlier referred. He did not. He must bear the consequences of his own decisions.

9. Mr Sheppard has now had the defective work rectified by others. His remedy against Mr van Weezep lies not with an application to renew in this tribunal but in proceedings elsewhere.