Steve Bagnall Homes Pty Ltd v Foley

The matter of Steve Bagnall Homes Pty Ltd v Foley involves a dispute between the Foleys, who were the purchasers of a residential property, and Steve Bagnall Homes Pty Ltd (SBH), the builder of the property. The Foleys entered into a contract with SBH for the construction of their home, which was completed in 2011. The Foleys subsequently raised complaints about defects in the building work, leading to the initiation of proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). In 2018, QCAT ordered SBH to pay the Foleys $167,232.89 in damages, and SBH has appealed the decision. The appeal raises questions of law, mixed law and fact, and fact, including issues related to variations in the contract, defective and incomplete building work, and the calculation of the builder’s margin and GST.

The legal issues in this case primarily revolve around the interpretation of the contract between the Foleys and SBH, the application of the Building Code of Australia, and the proper calculation of damages. SBH argues that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the contract, particularly in relation to the calculation of the builder’s margin and the rectification costs. SBH also contends that the Tribunal should not have relied on expert evidence to interpret the Building Code of Australia and that it erred in preferring one expert opinion over another. The appeal involves both questions of law and mixed law and fact, necessitating the grant of leave by the Appeal Tribunal to proceed.

The Appeal Tribunal found that the learned member of QCAT did not err in its interpretation of the contract or in its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal held that the rate of 20% for the builder’s margin was appropriately applied to the rectification costs, as it was the same allowance provided in the contract for Provisional Sums and Prime Cost Items. The Tribunal also found that the evidence was sufficient to support the Tribunal’s findings on the defective and incomplete building work, and that there was no basis to grant leave to appeal on the grounds presented by SBH. Consequently, the Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal.

In conclusion, the Appeal Tribunal found that SBH failed to demonstrate any grounds for appeal that warranted the granting of leave or a rehearing. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the parties to file and exchange submissions on costs within the specified timeframe. The case underscores the importance of a builder adhering to the terms of the contract and ensuring that the building work meets the required standards as set out in the Building Code of Australia.