Snooks v Yamanoi

[2011] QCAT 697

CITATION: Snooks v Yamanoi [2011] QCAT 697

PARTIES:	Stephen William Snooks
v
Rina Yamanoi

APPLICATION NUMBER:   BDL076-11   

MATTER TYPE: Building matters

HEARING DATE:     25 November 2011

HEARD AT:  Cairns

DECISION OF: Thomas Cowen, Member

DELIVERED ON: 25 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:      Cairns

ORDERS MADE:

1.     The Respondent pay to the Applicant the cost of the zincalume flashing in the amount of $826.65.

2.     The Respondent pay to the Applicant interest on the late payment in the amount of $229.37.

3.     The Respondent pay to the Applicant septic drain works being:

a)    pipes $432.00;

b)   bends $20.00;

c)    sand $150.00;

d)   backhoe and bobcat hire $745.00;

e)    plumber $340.00;

f)     cut off drain $220.00.

4.     The Applicant to carry out or arrange to carry out at his cost the following works:

a)    Bolts and fixings to be rust proofed by cleaning of rust and undercoating with two pack air cured zinc silicate or its equivalent to all exposed rods and nuts welded areas on the steel posts and adjacent plates;

b)   Complete the down pipe to the rear carport and make good as directed by Building Services Authority.

5.     The Applicant to provide to the Respondent a termite schedule sixteen (16) with appropriate notation relevant to the type of construction.

6.     The Applicant pay to the Respondent $100.00 liquidated claim for two (2) days reduction of time taken to complete building due to assistance in building works by Respondent’s agent Mr Wales.

7.     Each party to meet their own costs.

8.     The orders requiring work to be performed and payments of monies to be made are to be done within 90 days.

CATCHWORDS: Building dispute – quantum meruit

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Stephen William Snooks was self represented
RESPONDENT:	Rina Yamanoi was self represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The respondent was ordered to pay monies to the applicant for work performed and materials supplied outside the contract on the basis of quantum meruit where the materials supplied and the work performed was done in good faith including:

2. The applicant’s claim for zincalume sheeting and flashing supplied with evidence of the cost provided;

1. The applicant’s claim for additional work performed in installing sewage trenches including the cost of hire of backhoe and bobcat and the plumber rate was allowed but the rate for the labour of the applicant was not allowed since there was insufficient supporting evidence provided to distinguish the labour costs pertaining to the extra work and the labour costs that would have been incurred for that part of the sewage trenches that would have been carried out under the original plan.

2. The applicant’s claim for interest on late payments was allowed pursuant to the building contract between the applicant and the respondent.

1. The applicant’s claim for the extra cost for the front entry door was not allowed.  The item was a PC item not a PS and there was a door available at the allowed sum.

1. The applicant’s claim for the cost of installing the range-hood had merit but that cost is offset against the Order to make good the flue metal shaving problem and is thus not allowed.

1. The respondent claimed monies from the applicant for payment for wages due to the assistance that the respondent’s agent Mr Wales provided to the applicant during the course of the building.  This claim was not allowed: there was no agreement oral or written to allow for such payment; Mr Wales was acting as the agent for the respondent and was benefitting the respondent through his actions.  Mr Wales claimed 43 hours but admitted that this was a rough calculation.  The Tribunal found that Mr Wales’ assistance shortened the length of time it took to complete the building and that without that assistance the building would have taken 2 more days to complete and so 2 additional days was allowed to the liquidated claim made by the respondent for the time taken to complete the building beyond the anticipated completion date provided for in the contract between the respondent and the applicant.

1. The applicant was ordered to make good certain of the defects identified by the respondent and her agent Mr Wales in the course of the hearing.  These defects, while not being sufficiently severe to fall into the category of structural defect, may lead to further problems in the future and therefore should be rectified.  Thus orders to make good these defects were made including ensuring that the steel was rust proofed correctly, the silicone lining in the bathroom was brought up to the required standard and Form 16 Certificates were provided with the appropriate termite notations appropriate for the category and type of construction.

1. The Tribunal accepted the evidence that the bracing wall and the roof, as approved by the council building inspector and subsequently by the Building Services Authority inspector complied with the relevant Australian Standard for buildings in cyclone areas.

1. Each party are to meet their own costs, including the costs of the application as the usual order as to costs and since both parties’ application and counter-application had some merit.

1. These reasons are complementary to the oral reasons provided while delivering the Orders.