Slaven and Audsley v M & M Renovations

[2016] QCAT 116

CITATION: Slaven and Audsley v M & M Renovations [2016] QCAT 116

PARTIES:

Jon-Matthew Slaven and Jessica Lauren Audsley

(Applicants)

V

Michael Oughton and Marie J Shanahan trading as M & M Renovations
(Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER: BDL136-15

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Member Gordon

DELIVERED ON: 13 May 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDER MADE: Michael Oughton and Marie J Shanahan are ordered to pay to Jon-Matthew Slaven and Jessica Lauren Audsley the sum of $5,249.

CATCHWORDS: BUILDING MATTER – where part payment was paid to contractors for bathroom renovation – where no work was done and money was not repaid

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 9 and 10 April 2015 the Applicants paid a total of $4,305 to the Respondents as a part payment in advance for some renovation work to their bathroom.

2. No work was done by the Respondents and the money has not been returned to the Applicants despite several requests.  The Respondents became difficult to contact and have not responded to these proceedings.

3. In these circumstances, there was a total failure of consideration for the money paid to the Respondents and the Applicants are entitled to an order for its return. 

4. They also claim interest in the sum of $550.  This is claimed on the basis that they had to borrow the money for the bathroom renovations at 11.99% per annum.  This is a much larger interest rate than is usually awarded in claims of this sort, but it is justified in this particular case because I am satisfied from the evidence that at the time the contract was made the Respondents were aware that the Applicants were going to borrow this money from a financial institution.  The Respondents would have been aware that if they did not do the work or return the money the Applicants would also lose the interest they would have to pay the bank on an ongoing basis, at this sort of interest rate.  I am satisfied on the evidence submitted that a loan was taken out at this interest rate.

5. On this basis I allow interest at the rate claimed, on the principal amount of $4,305 from 10 April 2015 to the date of this decision.  However this must be capped at the sum of $550 which is the amount claimed in the application itself.

6. I do not allow the loan application fee of $120 because the total loan was much more than the quote for the bathroom work so the loan application fee would have been payable anyway, even if the Respondents had not been in breach of their obligations to work on the bathroom.

7. A claim was made for loss of wages because the Applicants took time off work to wait at the property when the Respondents were supposed to start work.  However, this head of claim was withdrawn during the proceedings.[1]

   [1]letter dated 9 February 2016

8. The Applicants also claim costs.  The only costs which have been proved to my satisfaction are the filing fee of $295 and service fees of $99.

9. The total award is therefore $4,305 plus interest of $550 plus costs of $394 = $5,249.