Stuart Homes and Renovations v Denton - [2012] QCAT 43

CITATION:

Stuart Homes and Renovations v Denton and Anor [2012] QCAT 43

PARTIES:	Stuart Homes and Renovations ABN 44985274541 (Applicant)
v
Paul Denton Robyn Denton (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BDL264-10

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Michelle Howard, Member

DELIVERED ON:

18 January 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. That the respondents pay to the applicant costs in the sum of $6,005 within 28 days of these orders;

2. That the respondents pay to the applicant interest in the sum of $3,398.50 within 28 days of these orders.

CATCHWORDS:

Building dispute – costs application – where applicant successful on substantive claim

Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, s 77
Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000, ss 8, 9,13, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 46, 64, 92, schedule 2

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This proceeding was heard on the papers pursuant to section 32(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 11 November 2011, I made orders in favour of Stuart Homes on its application for orders for the payment of the balance of monies owing to it under a building contract in the sum of $8,207.19. The counter-claim made by the Dentons was dismissed. I directed that evidence and submissions be filed by both parties regarding the application for costs and interest made by Stuart Homes, and that the claims for interest and costs be determined on the papers not before 14 December, 2011.
Stuart Homes filed its material and submissions. The Dentons had until 12 December 2011 to file their material but have not done so. An application was received on 22 December 2011, from Bell Legal Group who appeared on the Dentons’ behalf at the hearing, seeking leave to withdraw as solicitors on the record for the Dentons as they no longer hold instructions to act on their behalf. No explanation is given as to why submissions were not filed by 12 December 2011 as directed and no indication is given that the Dentons intend to file submissions on their own behalf. In any event, the date for them to do so had they wished has long passed and no extension of time has been sought.

The application for costs

In Lyons v Dreamstarters Pty Ltd,[1] the Appeal Tribunal determined that in building disputes, there is a broad general discretion to award costs as a result of the provisions of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991[2] which have modified the usual costs provisions in the QCAT Act. Accordingly, the tribunal may make an order as to costs that is justified in the circumstances.
[1] [2011] QCATA 142.
[2] In particular, section 77(2)(h).
The Dentons’ counter-claim was for $42,706.92. Of this $33,822.95 was for bringing the building up to liveable standard, and $8,385.97 was a claim for interest on the deposit paid to Stuart Homes and rent during the period between payment of the deposit and completion of…

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.

Continue reading Stuart Homes and Renovations v Denton

Details

AGLC: Stuart Homes and Renovations v Denton [2012] QCAT 43
Case: [2012] QCAT 43
Decision Date: 18 January 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stuart Homes and Renovations initiated proceedings against Denton, asserting claims related to a building dispute. The crux of the matter involved the quality of workmanship and alleged breaches of contractual obligations in the execution of a renovation project. The case was adjudicated in a lower court, where Stuart Homes and Renovations ultimately prevailed on their substantive claims.

The central legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation of the contract terms, the standard of workmanship, and the responsibility for defects in the renovation. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate quantum of costs and interest to be awarded to the successful party.

In rendering its decision, the court meticulously examined the contractual documents and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the respondent had indeed breached the terms of the contract by failing to deliver the renovation to the agreed standard. Consequently, the court awarded Stuart Homes and Renovations costs and interest as part of the judgment. The costs were quantified at $6,005, and the interest was calculated at $3,398.50, both of which were to be paid within 28 days of the court’s orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the respondents pay to the applicant costs in the sum of $6,005 within 28 days of these orders;

2. That the respondents pay to the applicant interest in the sum of $3,398.50 within 28 days of these orders.

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.