QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Stelzig v Ireland [2024] QCAT 237
PARTIES:
MIKE STELZIG (applicant)
v
SHANE EDWARD IRELAND (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
BDL 339-22
MATTER TYPE:
Building matters
DELIVERED ON:
10 June 2024
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Cairns
DECISION OF:
Member Taylor
ORDERS:
1. The respondent is to pay to the applicant $7,900 in restitution of that which the applicant paid to him for the construction of a driveway.
2. The applicant is relieved from paying to the respondent the remaining $800 of that which the applicant agreed to pay to the respondent for the construction of a driveway.
3. The respondent is to pay to the applicant $387 in costs of this proceeding.
4. The remainder of the applicant’s claim is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – GENERALLY – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – MEASURE OF – where a home owner contracted with a concreting trade contractor for the construction of a driveway at the homeowner’s residence – where there was no written contract between the parties – where under statute the contract was of no effect - where the construction of the driveway was substantially defective – where the only effective remedy to the defective work was to demolish the driveway and reconstruct it – where the homeowner claimed restitution of that which he had paid to the contractor – where the homeowner sought relief for payment of the remainder of the agreed amount – where the homeowner also claimed damages for the cost of demolition and other costs incurred
RESTITUTION – CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF INEFFECTIVE CONTRACTS – UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACT – BUILDING CONTRACT - where a home owner contracted with a concreting trade contractor for the construction of a driveway at the homeowner’s residence – where there was no written contract between the parties – where under statute the contract was of no effect - where the construction of the driveway was substantially defective – where the only effective remedy to the defective work was to demolish in total the driveway and reconstruct it – where the homeowner claimed restitution for money paid to the contractor – where the homeowner also claimed damages for the cost of demolition and other costs incurred
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) s 72, s 75, s 76, s 77, Schedule 1B s 1, s 3, s 4, s 5, s 6, s 14, s 86C, s 87, Schedule 2
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 21, s 32, s 102
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 369
Bocquee v Baltus [2019] QCAT 280
Clarke v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCAT 88
Cerda v Jacob [2020] QCATA 57
David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353
Leyden v N J Tierney Constructions Pty Ltd [2015] QCAT 483
Pavey & Mathews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 22
Robinson v Harman
Continue reading Stelzig v Ireland
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Stelzig v Ireland [2024] QCAT 237
- Case
- [2024] QCAT 237
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Stelzig could claim restitution for the payment made to Ireland for the defective driveway construction and if Stelzig could be relieved from paying the remaining amount due under the ineffective contract. Additionally, the court had to determine if Stelzig was entitled to damages for the demolition and other costs incurred as a result of the defective work. The court had to balance the principles of restitution for money paid under an unenforceable contract against the statutory provisions that rendered the contract ineffective.
The court held that although the contract was unenforceable due to its lack of written form, Stelzig was entitled to restitution for the money paid to Ireland for the driveway construction. This was because the statutory ineffectiveness did not negate the fact that Stelzig had paid for services that were not satisfactorily rendered. The court further ruled that Stelzig was relieved from paying the remaining balance owed to Ireland under the ineffective contract. However, regarding the claim for damages for demolition and other costs, the court found that these costs were not recoverable as they were not directly linked to the defective work. The court awarded costs to Stelzig and dismissed the remainder of the claim.
The court's orders included directing Ireland to pay Stelzig $7,900 in restitution for the payment made for the driveway construction, relieving Stelzig from paying the remaining $800 of the agreed amount, and ordering Ireland to pay $387 in costs of the proceeding. The remainder of Stelzig's claim for damages was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent is to pay to the applicant $7,900 in restitution of that which the applicant paid to him for the construction of a driveway.
2. The applicant is relieved from paying to the respondent the remaining $800 of that which the applicant agreed to pay to the respondent for the construction of a driveway.
3. The respondent is to pay to the applicant $387 in costs of this proceeding.
4. The remainder of the applicant’s claim is dismissed.
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.