Singh v The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd - [2019] QCAT 85

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Singh v The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd [2019] QCAT 85

PARTIES:

JAYMESH SINGH HARBANS SINGH
(applicant)

v

THE DIRT GUYS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL152-18

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 April 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Brown

ORDERS:

1. The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd pay Jaymesh Singh Harbans Singh ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN DOLLARS AND TWELVE CENTS ($11,517.12) within 14 days of the date of this decision.

2. The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd pay Jaymesh Singh Harbans Singh’s costs fixed in the amount of ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDERD AND SEVENTY DOLLARS AND SIXTY CENTS ($1,270.60) within 14 days of the date of this decision.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – DAMAGES – MEASURES OF – where contract entered into for the performance of building work – where builder becomes unlicensed after entering into contract – where builder performs unlicensed building work – where builder not entitled to consideration for performing building work – assessment of damages

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – where failure by respondent to comply with tribunal directions – where applicant unnecessarily disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to comply with tribunal directions – where applicant entitled to final decision – whether costs should be awarded in favour of applicant – whether standard or indemnity costs – whether pre-proceedings costs recoverable

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 42(1), s 42(3)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 48, s 100, s 107

Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613

Chow v Chow (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1348 (18 September 2015)

Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 118 ALR 248
Cook's Construction P/L v SFS 007.298.633 P/L (formerly trading as Stork Food Systems Australasia P/L) [2009] QCA 75 (3 April 2009)

Greer & Anor v Mt Cotton Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] QCATA 196 (21 November 2018)

Mertens v Home Freeholds Company[1921] 2 KB 526

Re Gibson’s Settlement Trusts [1981] Ch 179

Re Wilcox; Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 72 FCR 151; [1996] FCA

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

No appearance

APPEARANCES:

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 Dirt Guys Pty Ltd (TDG) contracted with Mr Singh to construct a rendered block retaining wall. The parties fell into dispute and Mr Singh terminated the contract. Mr Singh subsequently filed in the tribunal an application for a domestic building dispute. TDG has not complied with any tribunal directions. TDG has not filed a response to the application.
Background to the dispute
The parties entered into a Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) Level 1 renovation, extension and repair contract on 8 December 2017. The contract work is described as ‘rendered block retaining wall’. The starting date for the works…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Singh v The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] QCAT 85
Decision Date: 2 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), where Jaymesh Singh Harbans Singh sought damages for building work performed by The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd, which had become unlicensed after the contract was signed. The dispute centred on the assessment of damages due to the builder’s unlicensed status, which rendered them ineligible to claim consideration for the work completed. Additionally, the proceedings addressed the issue of costs, specifically whether the respondent's failure to comply with tribunal directions warranted an award of costs to the applicant.

The primary legal issues for the tribunal to decide were the appropriate measure of damages for the unlicensed building work and the quantum of costs, including whether standard or indemnity costs were applicable, and if pre-proceedings costs were recoverable. The tribunal had to assess whether the respondent's failure to adhere to tribunal directions had caused the applicant unnecessary disadvantage, justifying an award of costs.

In its decision, the tribunal found that The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd was not entitled to any consideration for the unlicensed building work performed. The tribunal awarded damages to the applicant, amounting to Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and Seventeen Dollars and Twelve Cents ($11,517.12), to compensate for the incomplete and substandard work. Regarding costs, the tribunal ruled that the respondent's failure to comply with tribunal directions had caused the applicant unnecessary disadvantage. Therefore, it awarded the applicant costs, fixed at One Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Dollars and Sixty Cents ($1,270.60), including pre-proceedings costs.

The tribunal ordered that The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd pay the damages and costs to Jaymesh Singh Harbans Singh within 14 days of the decision date. This comprehensive order addressed both the substantive matter of damages and the ancillary issue of costs, ensuring the applicant was adequately compensated for the respondent's non-compliance and breach of contract.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd pay Jaymesh Singh Harbans Singh ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN DOLLARS AND TWELVE CENTS ($11,517.12) within 14 days of the date of this decision.

2. The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd pay Jaymesh Singh Harbans Singh’s costs fixed in the amount of ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDERD AND SEVENTY DOLLARS AND SIXTY CENTS ($1,270.60) within 14 days of the date of this decision.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Singh v The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd [2019] QCAT 85
PARTIES:	JAYMESH SINGH HARBANS SINGH (applicant)
v
THE DIRT GUYS PTY LTD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	BDL152-18
MATTER TYPE:	Building matters
DELIVERED ON:	2 April 2019
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Senior Member Brown
ORDERS:	1. The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd pay Jaymesh Singh Harbans Singh ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN DOLLARS AND TWELVE CENTS ($11,517.12) within 14 days of the date of this decision. 2. The Dirt Guys Pty Ltd pay Jaymesh Singh Harbans Singh’s costs fixed in the amount of ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDERD AND SEVENTY DOLLARS AND SIXTY CENTS ($1,270.60) within 14 days of the date of this decision.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – DAMAGES – MEASURES OF – where contract entered into for the performance of building work – where builder becomes unlicensed after entering into contract – where builder performs unlicensed building work – where builder not entitled to consideration for performing building work – assessment of damages PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – where failure by respondent to comply with tribunal directions – where applicant unnecessarily disadvantaged by respondent’s failure to comply with tribunal directions – where applicant entitled to final decision – whether costs should be awarded in favour of applicant – whether standard or indemnity costs – whether pre-proceedings costs recoverable Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 42(1), s 42(3) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 48, s 100, s 107 Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 Chow v Chow (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1348 (18 September 2015) Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 118 ALR 248 Cook's Construction P/L v SFS 007.298.633 P/L (formerly trading as Stork Food Systems Australasia P/L) [2009] QCA 75 (3 April 2009) Greer & Anor v Mt Cotton Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] QCATA 196 (21 November 2018) Mertens v Home Freeholds Company[1921] 2 KB 526 Re Gibson’s Settlement Trusts [1981] Ch 179 Re Wilcox; Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 72 FCR 151; [1996] FCA
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	No appearance
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).