Symes v Wilkinson

[2025] SADC 99

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil: Minor Civil Review)

SYMES v WILKINSON

[2025] SADC 99

Reasons of Her Honour Judge Mackenzie  

30 July 2025

MINOR CIVIL REVIEW – GENERAL PRINCIPLES, CONTRACTS – DETERMINATION OF ORAL AGREEMENT, QUANTUM MERUIT ASSESSMENT, BREACH FOR DEFECTS AND PRE-ACTION NOTICE OBLIGATIONS

The principal issue raised in these proceedings is whether an oral agreement was reached between the applicant, Ms Symes, and the respondent, Mr Wilkinson, as to an hourly rate for plumbing and gas fitting services for conversion of Ms Symes’ coaster van (bus), and whether the hours charged were excessive.  Ms Symes instituted a review of a minor civil action in which the magistrate found Ms Symes liable to Mr Wilkinson in the sum of, $9,427.95 (inclusive of costs and pre-judgment interest). 

The magistrate did not find there was any excessive charging. The magistrate also dismissed a cross-claim filed by Ms Symes for defects and awarded Mr Wilkinson costs.

Five key issues were raised on review, relating to: the contract price; hours worked; the price charged for materials; alleged defects and pre-action failures.

HELD:

1.Allowing the review in part, rescinding the judgment, and awarding judgment for a lesser sum in favour of Mr Wilkinson in the sum of $8,090.00, inclusive of interest. 

2.      No orders made as to costs.

3.The conduct of a minor civil review depends upon the facts of the case before the court, and the judge has a broad discretion on review.  Wilczynski & Anor v District Court of SA & Ors [2022] SASC 115, Wilczynski & Anor v District Court of SA & Ors [2017] SASCFC 102 and Wilczynski v District Court of South Australia [2016] SASC 51 considered.

4.For the purpose of determining whether a contract was formed it is not necessary to identify the precise offer or acceptance; nor to identify a precise time at which an offer or acceptance can be identified.  Ormwave Pty Ltd v Smith [2007] NSWCA 210 and the authorities cited therein applied.

5.What needs to be determined is whether in all the circumstances an agreement can be inferred; whether mutual assent has been manifested; and what would a reasonable person in the position of each of the parties think as to whether there was a concluded bargain, Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd v IS and DE Robertson Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 1 applied.

6.The evidence of Mr Wilkinson having charged the same hourly rate to his other customers and his contemporaneous records of time spent working on the bus was persuasive evidence.  Evidence based upon a memory of events is less persuasive.

7.There was no term agreed as to the price Mr Wilkinson would charge Ms Symes for the materials he supplied.  It follows that the price for materials falls to be determined on a quantum meruit assessment.  Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221, 256 applied.

8.Insufficient evidence to find facts giving rise to any cause of action in relation to the fitting of the rear vent by Ms Symes on the alleged advice of Mr Wilkinson. 

9.The contract did include an implied obligation for Mr Wilkinson to provide a certificate of compliance to Ms Symes for the gas fitting works he performed on the bus to a substantially completed state.  Loss suffered by Ms Symes equated to a portion of costs incurred to obtain a certificate of compliance from another plumber.

Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA); Building Work Contractors Act 1995 (SA); Plumbers, Gas Fitters and Electricians Act 1995 (SA); Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), referred to.

Ormwave Pty Ltd v Smith [2007] NSWCA 210; Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd v IS & DE Robertson Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 1; Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221, applied.

Wilczynski & Anor v District Court of SA & Ors [2022] SASC 115; Wilczynski & Anor v District Court of SA & Ors [2017] SASCFC 102; Wilczynski v District Court of South Australia [2016] SASC 51; Symes v Wilkinson [2023] SADC 148; Harradine v District Court of South Australia (2012) 280 LSJS 572; [2012] SASC 96; Mathews v Qasemy [2020] SADC 175; Al Zoubidi v Madadi [2023] SADC 20; Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; (2016) 90 ALJR 679; (2016) 331 ALR 550; Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315, considered.

SYMES v WILKINSON
[2025] SADC 99

Introduction

1. This matter concerns a dispute about payment of a plumber’s account for plumbing and gas fitting work in converting a Toyota coaster van (bus) into a mobile home for a single mother and her son. 

2. It is before this court for review of a minor civil action under s 38(6) of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA). The applicant, Ms Carly Symes, is dissatisfied with the judgment of Judicial Registrar Burke (the magistrate) made ex tempore on 4 August 2023.  She was ordered to pay the respondent, being the plumber – Mr Phillip Wilkinson, $9,427.95 (inclusive of costs and pre-judgment interest).[1]  Her cross-claim against Mr Wilkinson for defects was also dismissed by the magistrate.

   [1]    Wilkinson v Symes [2023] SAMC 133.

3. The matter has a protracted history, having been remitted by the Supreme Court following judicial review of an earlier decision of the District Court.[2]  The Supreme Court determined that procedural fairness had not been afforded to Ms Symes in the earlier review hearing, including with respect to the judge failing to explain deficiencies in the evidence she was relying on and not giving her an opportunity to call evidence or otherwise address those deficiencies.  These matters have influenced the conduct of this (second) review.

   [2]     Symes v District Court of South Australia & Anor CIV-24-004098 (12 July 2024), Bampton J, (unpublished) and Symes v Wilkinson [2023] SADC 148.

   Application for Review

4. The provisions applicable to the trial of a minor civil action are set out in s 38(1) of the Magistrates Court Act.  An inquiry conducted in the minor civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court is to proceed on a broadly inquisitorial and not adversarial model with a magistrate undertaking an active role in determining the issues, the witnesses and the scope of evidence.[3] 

   [3]    Wilczynski & Anor v District Court of SA & Ors [2017] SASCFC 102 at [101].

5. A party dissatisfied with a judgment given in a minor civil action may apply to the District Court for review of the matter.[4]  Ultimately, on a review, the court may affirm the judgment of the magistrate or rescind it and substitute a judgment the court considers appropriate. 

   [4] Section 38(6) of the Magistrates Court Act.

6. Section 38(7) of the Magistrates Court Act provides that in hearing and determining a review of a minor civil action, the court may inform itself as it thinks fits and re-hear evidence taken by the magistrate, and it must also act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal forms. 

   Conduct of the Review

7. The principles relevant to the approach to be taken for conducting a review are well settled.[5] The court has a broad discretion on review and there may be more than one approach open to the judge on review.   The court may receive, or decline to receive, additional evidence on review.[6]  The interests of finality, and the concern to ensure a practical and efficient resolution of small claims, will often justify the refusal of an application to adduce fresh evidence.

   [5]     Harradine v District Court of South Australia (2012) 280 LSJS 572; [2012] SASC 96 at [53]; Wilczynski & Anor v District Court of South Australia & Ors [2016] SASC 51.

   [6]    Wilczynski v District Court of South Australia [2016] SASC 51 at [61] (Doyle J).

8. If the court determines to adduce further evidence on review, it then has an obligation to afford to the parties the opportunity to adduce evidence by calling witnesses and producing evidentiary material; such matters are typically determined as preliminary questions before the substantive hearing.[7]

   [7]    Wilczynski & Anor v District Court of SA & Ors [2022] SASC 115 at [328] (Blue J).

9. How far the court is required to inquire into issues at a review hearing depends upon the facts and issues of the particular case.[8]  The protracted history of this matter caused me to adopt a more far-reaching inquiry into the substance of the dispute than I might have otherwise determined to have been necessary in a matter such as this. 

   [8]     Wilczynski & Anor v District Court of SA & Ors [2017] SASCFC 102 at [101] (Lovell J) agreeing with the remarks of Doyle J in Wilczynski v District Court of South Australia [2016] SASC 51 at [69].

10. I permitted the parties to file further evidence, and I also reheard the evidence of certain witnesses afresh.  In so doing, I remained mindful of taking an approach on review which gives effect to the clear legislative intention to determine minor civil claims in a practical and efficient way.[9] 

    [9] Ibid.

11. For the convenience of the unrepresented parties, and also because Ms Symes was to appear via audio-visual link (AVL) at the substantive hearing, I arranged for the parties to be provided with a book of the written evidence that had been adduced by the parties in the Magistrates Court and in the earlier review hearing.[10]  This book of evidence was almost 200 pages and included affidavits, copies of emails and text messages, photographic images, tax invoices, wage slips and diary entries.  It was provided in hard copy format to enable the parties to refer to this evidence in their oral arguments before the court and to confirm the evidence to which I would have regard, without causing confusion or prolonging the review hearing.

    [10] Email to parties from District Court Mackenzie DCJ Chambers CAA on 25 March 2025 at 4.55 PM.

12. The parties were also informed at an earlier directions hearing that I would have regard to the evidence taken in the Magistrates Court and filed for the earlier review hearing, and I did not propose to require witnesses to be called again or evidence to be re‑tendered.[11]  I also informed them that I had read the transcript of the hearing from the Magistrates Court and would have regard to it.  In the lead up to the review hearing I made timetabling orders inviting the parties to file and serve further evidence (beyond that which had been considered in the Magistrates Court) confined to the issues in dispute at the review hearing.  I also asked the parties to indicate the witnesses they intended to call, together with an outline of the evidence they intended to adduce from those witnesses.

    [11] Ibid.

13. Adopting this kind of procedure on review, by which some further evidence is admitted and regard is also had to the evidence before the magistrate, has been dubbed a “hybrid approach”. The ambit and course of a hybrid review ought not, in my opinion, entail a freewheeling procedure without regard to the source of the applicant’s dissatisfaction with the decision of the magistrate.  A review hearing is not simply an opportunity for the dissatisfied party to be given a ‘second bite of the cherry’, which would dampen the very efficiencies which the minor civil jurisdiction seeks to address and be wasteful of court resources.  In most cases, consideration of the applicant’s notice of review against the reasons of the magistrate will be sufficient to allow the court to determine the issues arising on review and the extent to which there will be utility in requiring or permitting the parties to tender further evidence and rehearing evidence afresh. 

14. The approach I took for this review was also directed to giving Ms Symes the opportunity to correct the deficiencies in her evidence that had been noted in the earlier District Court hearing before Judge Slattery,[12] and which deficiencies were also mentioned in the judicial review hearing before Justice Bampton.[13]  Whilst the review hearing takes on an inquisitorial function I did not consider it to be my role to go as far as assisting Ms Symes to correct the deficiencies in her evidence, it was within her control and it was her responsibility to do so. I discussed such matters with the parties at an earlier directions hearing. 

    [12] Symes v Wilkinson [2023] SADC 148.

    [13] Symes v District Court of South Australia & Anor CIV-24-004098 (12 July 2024) (unpublished).

15. I set aside a day for the review hearing, which was held on 19 May 2025.  It commenced later in the morning to take account of Ms Symes appearing via AVL from Western Australia, which also meant that the hearing did not finish until very late in the afternoon at 5.59 pm. 

16. I commenced the hearing by admitting all of the documentary evidence and then proceeded to hear the oral evidence.  Ms Symes and Mr Wilkinson were given a short break by mid-afternoon to each prepare their final submissions, and each of them were then given approximately an hour to inform me of their positions.  I was mindful of the inquisitorial nature of the review hearing and I asked questions of the parties and the witnesses throughout the day with a view to getting to the bottom of the issues before me.

17. I admitted the following evidence tendered by Ms Symes: statutory declarations of Mr Jovan Kanurski (FDN 11) and Mr Sydney Chappell (FDN 14), affidavits of Mr Robbie Officer (FDN 15) and Ms Symes (FDN 12, including exhibits at FDN 13), and a written quotation for plumbing services from Build, Develop and Construct (FDN 20).  Upon request from Ms Symes, and for the purposes of certainty, I also formally admitted two further quotes that Ms Symes had tendered in the earlier review hearing, being written quotes made out to Ms Symes and exhibited to her affidavit of 25 October 2023 from: ‘Just Another Plumber’ (dated 24 October 2023) and ‘Dougal’s Plumbing and Gas Fitting’ (dated 23 October 2023).

18. Ms Symes also sought (late) to tender a copy of an extract of a text message allegedly sent to her from Sandra Kneile on 26 January 2023 at 7.57 am.[14]  It is apparent from the text message that Ms Kneile had also engaged Mr Wilkinson for plumbing services.[15]  The substance of the text from Ms Kneile relays that Mr Wilkinson had confirmed to her that his rates were $130 per hour or $920 per day, which she claimed “was not what he said before” but she could not remember those rates and had thought it was either “650 or 800”.  She further noted that she was not proposing to challenge Mr Wilkinson about his confirmed rates, as her job would only be “a few hours”.  Her text then went on to describe Mr Wilkinson as unreliable in confirming appointments and proffered her opinion that “more than 4½” is “taking the piss”, a remark which I take to be directed to Ms Symes’ complaint about the price charged by Mr Wilkinson for the work on her bus. 

    [14]   The text message was sent to chambers via email from Ms Symes on Saturday, 17 May 2025 at 2.21 PM, 2 days before the hearing and outside the time limit permitted by the orders for filing evidence.

    [15]   The book of evidence (R24, pp 130 – 133) included a set of text messages between Mr Wilkinson and Ms Kneile relating to work on her bus and referring to the hourly rate of $130 and day rate of $920.

19. Ultimately, I give this text message little weight in favour of Ms Symes because no context to the message is given.  Further, it is vague as to what Ms Kneile recalls Mr Wilkinson orally informing her about as to his rates, yet the certain confirmed written rates from Mr Wilkinson equate with those which he asserts were his standard rates (at about the same time) and are therefore supportive of his case against Ms Symes.  Ms Kneile’s opinion as to the value of the work conducted by Mr Wilkinson is without any context as to what she understood that work to have entailed and should not be viewed as an independent or expert opinion.[16]  To the extent it is relevant, I disregard Ms Kniele’s opinion.

    [16] The text message opens with “Hey lovely” and closes by wishing Ms Symes “good luck with it”.

20. Ms Symes called two witnesses: Mr Kanurski and Mr Chappell.  I address the substance of their evidence in more detail later in these reasons.  Mr Kanurski is a carpenter/cabinet-maker who also worked on the bus conversion during some of the period for which Mr Wilkinson was doing plumbing and gas fitting works to it.  Similarly, Mr Chappell was also engaged by Ms Symes to assist her with works to the bus – also allegedly through the period when Mr Wilkinson was carrying out his works.  They each appeared via AVL to the court and were subject to my examination, as well as examination by Mr Wilkinson.  Ms Symes also asked them questions.

21. As Ms Symes tendered a further affidavit I also had her sworn in to give further evidence via AVL.  I asked Ms Symes questions concerning her further affidavit evidence, as did Mr Wilkinson.

22. Mr Wilkinson’s further evidence consisted of twelve photographs (FDN 17, FDN 18 and FDN 19).  Ms Symes claimed she had not previously seen those photographs, though they had been loaded on the court portal on 14 April 2025.  I arranged for a copy to be emailed to her at the commencement of the hearing and emphasised that they were photographs that she could view when Mr Wilkinson was referring to them during his submissions.  Ultimately, other than providing me with some assistance to understand various parts of the bus, not much turned on these photographs.  At the end of the hearing, cognisant that nothing substantive turned on these photographs and bearing in mind the purpose of the minor civil jurisdiction, I declined to allow Ms Symes leave to put on further evidence in response to the photographs.  I formed the view that Ms Symes had been given sufficient time to put on any further evidence she wished for the review hearing, and further to the evidence before the Magistrates Court.  I was of the opinion that her tendering additional evidence after the hearing in response to Mr Wilkinson’s photographs would not be determinative of the factual issues in dispute and would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings.

23. Mr Wilkinson’s son, Jai, who was an apprentice plumber to his father at the relevant time, had given evidence in the Magistrates Court.  I did not require him to be re-called to give his evidence afresh.  Neither of the parties asked that he be re-called. 

24. Similarly, as Mr Wilkinson did not seek to put on further evidence of his own account of matters, beyond the oral evidence he gave in the Magistrates Court, I did not consider it necessary to rehear afresh his oral evidence.  In reaching my decision I have had regard to the evidence both Mr Wilkinson and his son gave in the Magistrates Court, and the magistrate’s findings in relation to that evidence. 

    Trial in the Magistrates Court

25. The trial in the Magistrates Court was conducted in an inquisitorial style as required by s 38(1)(a) of the Magistrates Court Act. 

26. The dispute between the parties was identified as Mr Wilkinson alleging that he provided the services (plumbing work and materials to convert the bus owned by Ms Symes to a mobile home) pursuant to an oral contract with Ms Symes, and that Ms Symes breached the contract because she had not fully paid him for the services that he provided.[17] 

    [17] Wilkinson v Symes [2023] SAMC 133 at [2].

27. Ms Symes alleged that certain parts of the services were defective or took too long.[18]  She also made a counterclaim against Mr Wilkinson for loss she said she incurred or will incur in relation to a vent incorrectly installed at the rear of the bus at the direction of Mr Wilkinson.[19] 

    [18] Ibid at [33].

    [19] Ibid at [43].

28. Mr Wilkinson and his son gave oral evidence.  Mr Wilkinson also relied upon an affidavit of Lauren McMillan and copies of electronic messages supplied by her, which the magistrate did not find to be of assistance.  I agree with the magistrate; the evidence of Ms McMillan was not particularly relevant or compelling.

1. Ms Symes relied on a statutory declaration she made prior to the trial and also gave oral evidence.  She also called Mr Kanurski and Mr Chappell to give evidence, in addition to their statutory declarations.  Though the magistrate found Mr Kanurski and Mr Chappell to be “impressive” witnesses, he was not ultimately persuaded by their evidence.

2. The magistrate identified some agreed facts between the parties, also noting that:

   1.Mr Wilkinson said he could not give Ms Symes a written quote because he did not know how complex the services would be, but he told her the rate he would charge to complete the services.  The rate is in dispute but both parties agreed that the rate was in addition to the costs of the materials.[20]

   2.Ms Symes asked Mr Wilkinson to undertake additional tasks while he was performing the services, so that the scope of the engagement expanded.[21]

   3.Ms Symes accepted that she had engaged Mr Wilkinson on a daily rate, rather than a fixed quote, there was, arguably, no cap to the amount that Mr Wilkinson could have charged her.[22]

   [20] Ibid at [3]. At the (second) review hearing Ms Symes said that she did not take into account the cost of materials as an additional cost because she considered she would be supplying everything “bar the pipework and the connection of those pipework”, but then conceded that was an error on her part with the pipework and connections being an additional cost: T.69.33-T.70.7.

   [21] Ibid.

   [22] Ibid.

3. The magistrate delivered his judgment ex tempore on 4 August 2023. I have read both the judgment and the transcript from the hearing which covered three days (20 July 2023 and 3 and 4 August 2023).  The magistrate’s reasons carefully traverse the evidence he considered, his weighing of the competing arguments and reasons for his findings – including as to Ms Symes’ counterclaim.  Ultimately he was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Symes was not charged for any defective work or work that was not performed diligently and efficiently.[23]  In relation to the counterclaim, he found that Ms Symes had not persuaded him, on the balance of probabilities, that there was sufficient material to support any cause of action that relates to her counterclaim (particularly relating to the cutting of the hole for the vent at the rear wall of the bus).  The judgment was made in favour of Mr Wilkinson, including an award for costs and pre-judgment interest.

   [23] Ibid at [42].

   Grounds of Review

4. Under UCR 214.2 Ms Symes was required to set out her grounds for review.  Further, pursuant to UCR 214.2(5) without further order of the court, Ms Symes was not entitled to rely upon grounds that were not stated in her notice of review. 

5. I pause to note that, curiously, those limitations under the rules are cast in the context of Chapter 18 dealing with appellate proceedings and do not mirror the broad design of the provisions governing minor civil actions under s 38 of the Magistrates Court Act (separately addressed in Chapter 24). Section 38(6) of the Magistrates Court Act only requires that the unsuccessful party indicate ‘dissatisfaction with’ the judgment – which does not evince of any requirement for a ground of appeal or review to be formulated as an error in a strict sense. Further, s 38(3) of the Magistrates Court Act obliges the magistrate, after giving judgment, to ‘advise the unsuccessful party of his or her right to apply for review of the proceedings by the District Court’ without prescribing any limitation to that review process.  This suggests that, unlike a typical ground of appeal, a ground for seeking minor civil review need only be directed to identifying why the magistrate’s decision was not arrived at according to good sense and the natural justice of the matter; or in not achieving fairness between the parties in relation to their legal rights, eschewing legal or other technicalities.[24] 

   [24] Mathews v Qasemy [2020] SADC 175 at [9] – [10].

6. In any event, in keeping with the nature of the minor civil jurisdiction, and noting the parties were unrepresented, I have refrained from being too technical in construing the review grounds. At the earlier directions hearing I satisfied myself that the parties understood the key issues for determination at the review hearing.

7. Ms Symes’ review grounds (FDN 1) were as follows:

   1.The magistrate erred in failing to find that a contract was created by the oral quote of [Mr Wilkinson], provided to [Ms Symes] on Monday, 9 January 2023 and accepted on the same day;

   2.The magistrate erred in finding that [Mr Wilkinson] worked the hours that are listed in the invoice dated 5 January 2023;

   3.The magistrate erred in finding that [Mr Wilkinson] used the materials that are listed in the invoice dated 5 January 2023;

   4.The magistrate erred in failing to find that [Mr Wilkinson] breached his contract with [Ms Symes], by performing non-compliant work and failing to issue a certificate of compliance, which caused loss to [Ms Symes] due to the costs of rectifying his work and obtaining the certificate of compliance; and

   5.Costs ought not to have been awarded against [Ms Symes] since [Mr Wilkinson] failed to comply with the relevant pre-action protocols. 

8. Ms Symes also filed a written case shortly prior to the commencement of the review hearing (FDN 24) setting out her submissions for the review hearing pursuant to UCR 217.12(3).  The issues identified as arising on review, which are apparent from Ms Symes’ written case, differed in some respects to her grounds of review, though nothing turns on this point.

   Building Work Contractors legislation

9. Ms Symes’ written case (FDN 24) also introduced a new topic concerning an alleged breach by Mr Wilkinson of implied terms of the contract by operation of the Building Work Contractors Act 1995 (SA). This matter had not been argued in the Magistrates Court, though the magistrate had found that the contract between Ms Symes and Ms Wilkinson contained implied terms consistent with s 32(2) of the Building Work Contractors Act.[25] 

   [25] Wilkinson v Symes [2023] SAMC 133 at [4].

10. In her submissions, Ms Symes sought to expand upon these findings by putting an alternative case that if Mr Wilkinson’s contract was for services in excess of $12,000 he had breached specific provisions of the Building Work Contractors Act relating to ‘domestic building work’.  If applicable, those provisions would require, amongst other things, that the contract be in writing and set out the full terms – including by stipulating a specific price for the performance of the building work, being a price that is fixed and not subject to change – or, if it is subject to change, that such change be subject to a prescribed form of ‘rise and fall clause’.  Ms Symes did not press this topic in her oral submissions, and it was not referable to a specified ground of review. 

11. In any event, I do not accept that the work performed by Mr Wilkinson could be classified as ‘domestic building work’ under the Building Work Contractors Act because such plumbing and gas fitting work would need to have been performed ‘in relation to a house’. And the definition of ‘house’ under that Act requires that the house be a ‘building’.[26] Under s 3(1) of that Act a ‘building’ is defined to include a ‘wall or structure and part of a building or a structure’, and I decline to interpret the references to ‘building’ in the Act as extending to a vehicle, such as the bus - even where it is to be converted to a mobile home. My interpretation is supported by the ambit of the carve-out from the definition of ‘house’ under reg 4(3)(b) of the Building Work Contractors Regulations because it only envisages references to ‘house’ as potentially capturing accommodation of a kind constituted in a built form on land.  I disagree with Ms Symes’ more novel argument that because motor homes and other forms of mobile accommodation are not expressly carved out from the definition of house, that the word ‘house’, when used in the legislation, must then encompass vehicles, boats or aircraft fitted out for accommodation but which are not otherwise ‘buildings’.  Such a conclusion does not necessarily follow, and I prefer a normative construction.

    [26] Section 3(1) of the Building Work Contractors Act 1995 and reg 4(2) of the Building Work Contractors Regulations 2011.

12. For these reasons I do not accept Ms Symes’ alternative submissions that Mr Wilkinson breached the requirements of Part 5 of the Building Work Contractors Act which applies to domestic building work.

13. For completeness, I note similar consumer protection provisions also operate pursuant to s 33B of the Plumbers, Gas Fitters and Electricians Act 1995 (SA) if there is a “charging clause” in the contract to perform plumbing, gas fitting or electrical work on domestic property. I am satisfied this provision would not have applied because:

    (i)the bus does not fall within the definition of “domestic property” – which also contemplates a building; and

    (ii)there is no “charging clause” in the contract between Ms Symes and Mr Wilkinson.

    Submissions - overview

14. Once all of the evidence had been tendered and heard I asked Ms Symes and Mr Wilkinson to tell me about their key arguments and anything they particularly wanted me to understand. 

    Ms Symes

15. Ms Symes’ oral submissions during the review hearing were often directed to diminishing Mr Wilkinson’s credibility. She alleged that he had not delivered professional services required of a  plumber and gas fitter, including because there were errors in the work he did on the bus for which he had charged Ms Symes, and also because he had charged her for hours he and/or his son did not work. I cover these submissions in more detail below, as they relate to the specific issues addressed on review.

16. There were particular days and hours which Ms Symes disputed and made submissions about, and were replicated from her affidavit evidence.[27]  For convenience I have summarised Ms Symes’ submissions as to the particular days and hours she challenged on Mr Wilkinson’s invoice in a schedule to these reasons; Mr Wilkinson’s responsive submissions have been incorporated.

    [27] Exhibit A4 - affidavit affirmed by Ms Symes on 7 April 2025  – pp 8 to 11.

17. Some of these matters were previously raised by Ms Symes in the Magistrates Court.  At that earlier trial Mr Wilkinson conceded that the hours charged for the work completed on the 4^th and 6^th of January 2023 ought to have been charged at a lesser rate ($100 plus GST) because he accepted Jai was not present on those days.  This would have amounted to a reduction of $20 per hour (based upon the GST inclusive rates of $110 and $130).  This would have been a $210 reduction based on the 10.5 hours charged over those two days; however, this appears to have been confused during that part of the trial and Mr Wilkinson said that he was prepared to accept a $350 reduction to the amount he was claiming.[28]  Accordingly, the invoiced amount of $8,080.45[29] was reduced by $350.  In my opinion the amount of this reduction is also sufficient to account for the alleged difference in the diary entry on the 17^th of January 2023, as noted by Ms Symes.[30]  Mr Wilkinson did not contest the application of this reduction at the review hearing.[31]

    [28] T163-165 (4/8/2023).

    [29] Representing the total invoiced price of $12,930.45, less the $4,500 paid by Ms Symes.

    [30] Book of evidence 19 May 2025, Exhibit R26, page 150.

    [31] T110.29-111.11.

18. I am not satisfied that Jai was not present working with Mr Wilkinson on the 10^th and 11^th of January 2023, as alleged by Ms Symes.  Ms Symes contended that he was not working at all for a week after he suffered from sunburn on the “public holiday”, which I infer refers to the New Year’s Day public holiday on Monday, 2^nd of January 2023.  I find it unlikely that Jai would not have worked the following week as a consequence of sunburn; and I accept Mr Wilkinson’s account consistent with his diary entries.

    Mr Wilkinson

19. In his oral submissions Mr Wilkinson addressed the following matters:

    ·the additional work that Ms Symes had requested they do while working on the bus and the other plumbers had not quoted in respect of those additional tasks;[32]

    ·his son not being left alone to complete any gas work;

    ·the reasons for not waiting the 21 days for the filing of the proceedings was due to Ms Symes proposing to leave in her bus;

    ·the flexi-hose not being a defect because he had always intended to replace it and it was only installed to test the pipework to the gas cooker;

    ·the only faulty work claimed by Ms Symes relates to the gas hose but not to any leaking or other matters, he had intended to come back to fix the gas hose issue but was not permitted back to do it;

    ·the excessive cost of $650 to fix the compliance matters and have a certificate of compliance issued;

    ·not giving Ms Symes incorrect advice about the rear vent;

    ·the limitations of Mr Officer’s evidence as an expert and the evidence of the so-called expert plumbers being based upon the information Ms Symes has given to them;[33] and

    ·the difficulties of fitting the gas pipe due to the placement of the gas box and the tank.[34]

    [32] T125.27-36.

    [33] T127.1-13.

    [34] T128.1-26.

20. Mr Wilkinson also responded to a number of the specific disputed time entries which appear in the schedule to these reasons.

    Key issues for determination

21. The key issues arising for determination on review can be condensed into the following topics:

    (a)Whether there was an oral contract formed on the basis of a quoted price for the work to be undertaken by Mr Wilkinson?

    (b)Whether the hours recorded and charged on the invoice were excessive?

    (c)Whether there was an excessive charge for materials?

    (d)Whether there were defects in the work undertaken by Mr Wilkinson for Ms Symes which have caused Ms Symes loss?

    (e)Whether it was appropriate for the magistrate to have awarded Mr Wilkinson costs because he had not given Ms Symes 21 days’ notice prior to filing his claim in the Magistrates Court pursuant to the pre-action notice rules?

    General considerations on review

22. As this is not an appeal in any strict sense, I am not constrained from interfering with findings that are based on the credibility of witnesses who gave evidence in the Magistrates Court; I do not need to rehear those witnesses to do so.  Further, I may disturb the magistrate’s findings of fact without my needing to be satisfied that those findings are wrong, as demonstrated by incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony, or are glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences.[35] That said, I have had careful regard to the findings of the magistrate and his reasons.

    [35]   See Al Zoubidi v Madadi [2023] SADC 20 at [19] citing Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; (2016) 90 ALJR 679; (2016) 331 ALR 550 at [43]. 

23. I turn now to address each of the issues for determination in turn.

    (a) Whether there was an oral contract formed on the basis of a quoted price for the work to be undertaken by Mr Wilkinson?

24. It was Ms Symes’ position that on 25 October 2022 when Mr Wilkinson had come to inspect the coaster bus at her home at Aldinga Beach and to determine the scope of work to be undertaken that he provided her with a verbal quote for a daily rate of $650 (plus GST) for two-to-three days of plumbing work, and a separate figure for gas and compliance work of $1,000. 

25. Ms Symes claims that this is supported by the budget of $3,000 that she then set for herself for the work, though she accepted she did not inform Mr Wilkinson of her budget.  Ms Symes accepted that both Mr Wilkinson and his son attended on 25 October 2022 and that the $650 rate was stated to apply ‘for the two of them’, and that a day rate would cover an eight-hour day.

26. Mr Wilkinson’s recollection of the discussions that took place at that meeting on 25 October 2022 is different.  Mr Wilkinson’s position was that he told Ms Symes that he could not provide a quotation but that if he was given a full day’s work then he would charge a daily rate of $850 plus materials if paid promptly, and if Ms Symes only wanted him to work a few hours he would charge her an hourly rate of $130 including GST plus materials.  Mr Wilkinson said that Ms Symes accepted these rates.

27. Further, there was evidence given by Ms Symes in the Magistrates Court that she did not communicate to Mr Wilkinson her budget ceiling for the work he was to undertake; she kept it to herself. As such, it does not suffice as an objective fact to contract formation or terms. 

28. The magistrate was satisfied on the evidence before him that the parties agreed that the rate would be $850 per day plus GST and materials, or otherwise a rate of $130 per hour including GST plus materials if not paid promptly. 

29. For the purpose of determining whether a contract was formed it is not necessary to identify the precise offer or acceptance; nor to identify a precise time at which an offer or acceptance can be identified.[36]  What needs to be determined is whether in all the circumstances an agreement can be inferred; whether mutual assent has been manifested; and what would a reasonable person in the position of each of the parties think as to whether there was a concluded bargain?[37] There was clearly a forensic contest between the parties as to whether a contract had been formed, and the price for services agreed.

    [36]   Ormwave Pty Ltd v Smith [2007] NSWCA 210 at [68] and the authorities cited at [68]-[75] (Beazley JA, Santow and Ipp JJA agreeing).

    [37]   Mushroom Composters Pty Ltd v IS and DE Robertson Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 1 at [60] citing Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; 53 NSWLR 153 at [81].

30. Having regard to the evidence in the Magistrates Court, Mr Wilkinson relied upon copies of numerous invoices issued to other clients for plumbing and gas fitting work that he carried out in or about the same period, all of which described an hourly charge rate of $130 (inclusive of GST), to establish that it was probable that he would have quoted the same hourly rate to Ms Symes.  In the Magistrates Court Mr Wilkinson also gave evidence that he had never charged a day rate of $650 and submitted it would have been most unusual for him to offer Ms Symes a day rate reduced by $200. 

31. Further, the evidence given by Mr Wilkinson’s son, Jai (who the magistrate found to be an impressive witness), was to the effect that he had heard his father discussing the charge rates of $850 per day and $130 per hour with Ms Symes on the day they first inspected the coaster bus at her property.[38]  As noted above, these rates are also consistent with the text message from Ms Kneile sent to Ms Symes on 26 January 2023, not long after the relevant time.[39]

    [38]   There was a discrepancy noted in the Magistrates Court about whether the rates were GST inclusive or exclusive, which was conceded by Mr Wilkinson to be a GST-inclusive rate: Wilkinson v Symes [2023] SAMC 133. at [12].

    [39] Refer to paragraph 18 above.

32. During the hearing in the Magistrates Court the magistrate tested Ms Symes’ contention; he converted Ms Symes’ asserted daily rate (based on a 7.5 hour day) to an hourly rate – being about $43 per hour for each plumber – and suggested to her that this equated to a very low rate for a plumber; being a matter of which he was entitled to take judicial notice in a case such as this.  I note it would be an even lesser hourly rate if it was divided by eight hours, being the “standard day” that Ms Symes agreed would apply to the daily rate.[40]  Ms Symes did not assert that this ‘really cheap’ hourly rate had been expressly discussed with, or agreed to by, Mr Wilkinson and maintained that it was only the daily rate of $650 plus GST that had been discussed and agreed. 

    [40] T69.32.

1. Further, it is not clear to me how Ms Symes contends the daily rate of $650 plus GST was to be applied to work when there were only a few hours or less of work done on a particular day.  It became apparent in the review hearing that Ms Symes accepted that for some days there was less than a full day worked.  I find it unusual in the circumstances where Ms Symes was present for most days when Mr Wilkinson was attending to work on her bus for less than a full day that she would not have then enquired of Mr Wilkinson about what she would be charged for that work, this is particularly so where she was paying Mr Kanurski each day and must have been alert to paying trades for hours worked each day. 

2. All of these matters point to an inherent implausibility in Ms Symes’ testimony as to the rate agreed for Mr Wilkinson’s services.

3. Ms Symes contended that I should not find Mr Wilkinson’s evidence to be credible or reliable. I give consideration to those contentions, which I have summarised below.

4. In her oral submissions, Ms Symes sought to attack the reliability of Mr Wilkinson’s record-keeping – particularly his diary entries and invoices.[41] I understood Ms Symes to be urging me not to accept Mr Wilkinson’s contentions about the contract pricing because his evidence is inherently unreliable. Whilst I accept these were some errors in Mr Wilkinson’s record keeping (some of which he conceded), I have not found his evidence to be unreliable in any general way.

   [41] T101-T102.

5. Ms Symes also referred to exhibits to her earlier affidavit affirmed on 25 October 2023, which displayed screenshots of the Wilkinson Plumbing website.  The screenshots showed photographs and material which Ms Symes claims were referable to her coaster bus being falsely represented as work Mr Wilkinson had completed for a “very happy customer”.  Ms Symes stated “if he’s saying on his website that he’s created, designed and installed that bathroom, that’s incorrect, and that shows … if he’s willing to do that, … you know, what is he willing to do with this invoice”.[42]

   [42] T101.3-7.

6. I accept that if these images and descriptions on his website do in fact concern Ms Symes’ bus (I was not prepared to make any finding about this) it would be misleading to refer to the customer as having been “very happy” given the circumstances of this litigation.  However, even if I could be sufficiently satisfied about the misleading nature of claims on Mr Wilkinson’s business website, in my view those matters would not significantly diminish the reliability of his evidence concerning the terms of the oral contract in this case because Mr Wilkinson’s position is supported by contemporaneous evidence of what he was charging to other customers, the evidence given by his son and the implausibility of Ms Symes’ contentions on this topic. 

7. In these circumstances I agree with the conclusion reached by the magistrate that there was an oral contract for Mr Wilkinson and his son to carry out the works on Ms Symes’ coaster bus on the basis of a rate of $130 per hour including GST.[43] 

   [43]   I also accept that the discounted daily rate of $850 plus GST was agreed with Ms Symes, which would apply if the account was paid promptly.  As the magistrate observed, the day rate is not now directly relevant because the disputed account was not paid at all, let alone ‘promptly’.

8. I pause here to note that as I have found that there was a contract between Mr Wilkinson and Ms Symes for the provision of plumbing and gas fitting services at a specified hourly rate, and those services were substantially performed (putting aside the alleged defects which Ms Symes claims, which are addressed below), no issue arises for consideration as to whether Mr Wilkinson’s entitlement to payment for labour is limited to fair and reasonable compensation determined on a quantum meruit basis.[44]  This limits the relevance of the further evidence tendered by Ms Symes, being quotations from other plumbers and gas fitters for doing similar work on a coaster bus.  In any event, I will briefly summarise that evidence, noting that some of it is relevant to the third issue dealt with below.

   [44] Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 at 256 (Deane J).

9. The most recent document tendered by Ms Symes was a written “draft quotation” numbered QT00401 from a firm known as “Build, Develop and Construct” for plumbing and gas fitting services (FDN 20).[45]  It purports to be based on “previous work completed by Wilkinson plumbing at current pricing from suppliers at retail price”, which included charges for “tradesmens (sic.) rate at $130.00 per hour + GST”.  It seeks to allocate a unit of “1” to three groups of listed items and then sets out a total price of $7,853.58 inclusive of GST.  If the question before me was to determine a fair and reasonable price for the works then this evidence would inform such a determination.  However, as I have found that there was a contract between Mr Wilkinson and Ms Symes, the Build, Develop and Construct quote is not directly relevant.  As far as the document suggests the hours required for each group of tasks the evidence is untested because the author was not available for examination and the context (including the assumptions relied upon) in which it was given are not set out.

   [45] Exhibit A6.

10. Similarly, the two quotes of “Just Another Plumber” dated 24 October 2023[46] and “Dougal’s Plumbing and Gas fitting - John R Jenning Plumbing and Gas fitting” dated 23 October 2023[47] are of limited utility to the matters I now need to determine.  They essentially represent the views of other plumbers and gas fitters about the dollar value attributable to purported equivalent work on Ms Symes’ bus, including the labour component required in the case of the “Just Another Plumber” quote.  The opinions are essentially that the works completed by Mr Wilkinson and his son could not have resulted in an invoice for in excess of $12,000. 

    [46] Exhibit A9.

    [47] Exhibit A10.

11. I infer that Ms Symes’ instructions to each of these plumbers and gas fitters  to obtain the quotes were based upon assumptions consistent with her contentions; being that the job was of a confined scope, straightforward, did not include any additional attendances or otherwise run into difficulties, and that Ms Symes had attended to certain aspects of the work herself; Mr Wilkinson disputes all of these matters.[48]  The opinions also suffer from the shortcoming that neither Mr Wilkinson or I were able to question the authors of the opinions, and it is not apparent that they had conferred with Mr Wilkinson about any issues that confronted him or particular exigencies of the work done for Ms Symes. 

    [48] T127-128; T140.

12. For the purposes of the first issue concerning the rates that were agreed as part of the oral contract, these opinions are of limited import because this aspect is not a quantum meruit claim.  As mentioned, the other purported utility for these opinions is to seek to discredit Mr Wilkinson so as to lay a foundation of disbelief in the hours he charged Ms Symes.  For the reasons already expressed, I am not persuaded by this evidence.

    (b)    Whether the hours recorded and charged on the invoice were excessive?

13. The reasons why Ms Symes claimed that Mr Wilkinson’s hours were excessive fell into two general categories: first, that his hours were not accurately recorded; and, secondly, that he worked too slowly.

14. In terms of the inaccurate recording of his hours, Ms Symes challenged Mr Wilkinson’s “ethics”, “character” and “professionalism”, and in relation to some of Mr Wilkinson’s diary entries, said that they did not “stack up”. Ms Symes’ witnesses expressed general incredulity about the hours that Mr Wilkinson claimed were spent for the work carried out; and Ms Symes directly challenged the hours recorded on numerous days.  It was clear to me in my questioning of Ms Symes that she considered Mr Wilkinson had fabricated some of his diary entries.  I did not sense that Ms Symes was contending that Mr Wilkinson was merely mistaken about the recording of his hours; Ms Symes was laying the foundation for me to make a finding that Mr Wilkinson was dishonest.[49]  A finding that Mr Wilkinson was dishonest would also assist Ms Symes’ claims about the rate he had quoted to her for the job.  In determining this matter I am conscious of the gravity of making such a finding against Mr Wilkinson and the strength of the evidence necessary to support it.

    [49] See, for example, T97.6-30.

15. In relation to Ms Symes’ claims that the hours Mr Wilkinson and his son worked were not accurately recorded or that he worked too slowly, Ms Symes relied principally upon written and oral evidence given by Mr Kanurski and Mr Chappell at the hearing, as well as her own account.  The evidence of Mr Officer of ‘Mr Coaster’ was also tendered, though he did not appear as a witness.

16. The further evidence of Mr Kanurski and Mr Chappell at the (second) review hearing was in part directed to addressing concerns that the magistrate had expressed about their evidence at trial.  It was apparent that Ms Symes also sought to rely on their evidence for the purpose of attacking the credibility of Mr Wilkinson; a point to which I have already alluded.

17. I address below the evidence given by each of the witnesses relevant to this issue.

    Mr Kanurski

18. For Mr Kanurski the magistrate had identified an inconsistency between his evidence and that of Ms Symes relating to the period for which he allegedly worked on the bus; Ms Symes alleged Mr Kanurski had started regular work on the bus from 12 December 2022 but Mr Kanurski’s evidence was that he had completed five full weeks of work prior to 19 December 2022 (meaning he would have commenced on 14 November 2022).[50]  For this reason the magistrate was not prepared to accept Mr Kanurski’s evidence about the hours worked in preference to Mr Wilkinson’s account (which also accorded with the evidence of his son).

    [50] Wilkinson v Symes [2023] SAMC 133 at [23].

19. Ms Symes sought to overcome some of the difficulties which the magistrate found with Mr Kanurski’s evidence by re-calling him to give evidence at the review hearing.  A further one-page statutory declaration of Mr Kanurski was also admitted into evidence.[51]  At the review hearing, Mr Kanurski clarified the period for which he was not present at the bus, which includes a period of at least five days (covering 43 hours), during which Mr Wilkinson claims he worked on the bus.

    [51] Exhibit A1.

20. I considered Mr Kanurski to give direct and honest answers to the questions put to him, though he did have difficulty recalling some precise details about the work carried out by Mr Wilkinson and his son.  Ultimately, I did not find his evidence to be of much assistance to Ms Symes’ claims for the reasons I describe below.

21. Mr Kanurski confirmed that he was a carpenter by trade and builds houses and other structures “day-in-day-out”.  Mr Kanurski gave evidence at the review hearing that he commenced working on Ms Symes’ bus on 12 December 2022. He described his work on the bus as being all of the building work, but not the plumbing or electrical work, because that would be “out of [his] scope of knowledge”.  He described the job he performed as being conducted on a “not professional” basis because he did not keep records and issue invoices as he would for other “professional jobs”.  Mr Kanurski also gave evidence that he was typically paid cash or by bank transfers on a daily basis by Ms Symes, without issuing any formal invoice to Ms Symes.  Though stating that he recorded electronic notes on his phone about the days he worked on the bus, those records were not produced for the court or given to Mr Wilkinson. 

22. It was difficult to gain a clear understanding of precisely what hours Mr Kanurski worked on the bus as his responses to questions about the hours he worked were vague.  Though he described in general terms the work he performed was “pretty much full-time”, he also admitted that there were periods where he arrived late after working on other jobs, including because he could work “well into the night” because it was the middle of summer.  He also confirmed, upon being questioned, that he did not work from the 19^th of December 2022 through to the 4^th of January 2023 (other than on 20 December when he worked late, arriving after 5.30 pm, because he had worked earlier that day on another job in Victor Harbor). 

23. Mr Kanurski also opined about the nature of the work on the bus that was required to be completed by Mr Wilkinson.  Mr Wilkinson questioned Mr Kanurski intensely about the work done to position two of the four water tanks on the bus for which the piping would then need to be plumbed.  The questioning descended into technical points, including about the length of the bolts required to pass through the floor of the bus to the water tanks.  There was clearly disagreement between Mr Wilkinson and Mr Kanurski about the complexity of that work of Mr Wilkinson as it related to the rear tanks that had already been positioned by Mr Kanurski and Ms Symes.  During questioning about the complexity of the job, Mr Kanurski recalled that Mr Wilkinson did have difficulties with the way in which the tanks had originally been installed by Ms Symes; Mr Kanurski said that Mr Wilkinson had not liked the fit “and wanted it to be redone”. Mr Kanurski accepted that Mr Wilkinson’s way of doing the job might have made it hard. In Mr Kanurski’s opinion, with what he described as “years of experience working alongside plumbers” 38 hours for work on the water tanks was “just crazy”, particularly in view of two of them being pre-installed.

24. Ultimately, it became apparent through my questioning of Mr Kanurski that he was not directly challenging the hours that Mr Wilkinson worked on the bus to fit the tanks, instead it was his opinion that those hours seemed to be an “excessive amount of time”.  I note Mr Kanurski accepted that he was not an expert in plumbing or gas fitting and he had a different opinion to Mr Wilkinson about how some of the work should have been carried out.  Given that Mr Kanurski, by his own admission, could not have been present during more than half of the total hours for which Mr Wilkinson claimed, I find his evidence to be of limited assistance to support Ms Symes’ claim that Mr Wilkinson did not work all of the hours that he charged for. Mr Kanurski’s evidence instead challenged Mr Wilkinson’s methods and the efficiency in which he attended to the plumbing of the tanks, an area in which he is not an expert.

25. I did not find convincing any of the evidence given by Mr Kanurski, which Ms Symes sought to adduce by her further questioning of him, about alleged errors made by Mr Wilkinson’s son in running the gas pipe in the bus and, by implication, the further hours then taken to fix it.  Despite Ms Symes’ leading questions, including where she referred to “an issue with the work the apprentice did”, Mr Kanurski had difficulty recalling the events surrounding the gas pipe and could only remark in a conclusive way that “the pipe was in the wrong place” and “Phil would have to redo it”, and that “something was wrong” and that he was trying to “help fix the problem”. His evidence was simply not sufficiently cogent for me to form a view that Mr Wilkinson or his son had made a mistake of the kind Ms Symes was alleging.

    Mr Chappell

26. Mr Chappell is a welder by trade.  He described the circumstances upon which he came to help Ms Symes with converting her bus as “doing a favour” for a third person.  He gave evidence that he did not charge for any of the work he did on the bus.  He described the work he did as “general handyman sort of stuff” to help Ms Symes, including painting, tiling, mounting the shower, toilet and rear two water tanks, and other “odd jobs”.  His experience of four-wheel driving and working in the fabrication business for nearly 40 years (including on food caravans) allowed him to offer Ms Symes advice about the conversion, including to use special stainless steel bolts to mount the water tanks and the use of “Nylocs” - which would not be affected by the vibration of the vehicle, and to mount the water pump on the inside of the bus and not underneath where it would be at risk of stone damage.

27. I found Mr Chappell to be very knowledgeable and honest. However, his evidence was ultimately to be of little assistance to support Ms Symes’ claims.  Mr Chappell was unable to give direct answers to many of the questions put to him by Ms Symes, including about the “hole saw”, and the alleged incorrect cutting of a hole by Mr Wilkinson and it having to be plugged. Ms Symes found herself having to lead him through much of his evidence for her purposes. Further, much of what he stated about the work done by Mr Wilkinson was his opinion that it was a “simple job” and should not have taken that long.  Like Mr Kanurski, he also changed his recollection about the date he commenced work on the bus from that given in the Magistrates Court.  At the review hearing he said he commenced on the 28^th of November 2022 – differing to the evidence he gave in the Magistrates Court where he said he had started on the 14^th of November 2022.  He also gave evidence at the review hearing that he was working on the bus five days a week from late November 2022 to early February 2023.  Like Mr Kanurski, he did not produce any written records to support the days he said he worked. 

28. Ultimately, the key evidence of Mr Chappell at the review hearing related to the assertion that Mr Wilkinson’s son, Jai, had incorrectly laid a gas line through the area for the rear tanks which had been marked out with a template prepared by Mr Chappell culminating in further work being required (and hours spent) for Mr Wilkinson to fit the tanks.  When questioned by Ms Symes, Mr Chappell did not agree with Ms Symes that Mr Wilkinson said he would correct the mistake free-of-charge, Mr Chappell instead asserted “a true tradesman would pick that up”.[52]  In his submissions, Mr Wilkinson disagreed with the proposition that there had been any error with the gas line and maintained his assertion that the laying of the gas line was difficult due to the confined space and the positioning of the tanks.[53] 

    [52] T43.12.

    [53] T127-128; T140.

    Mr Officer

29. Mr Officer was not called as a witness but I admitted his affidavit of 4 April 2025 into evidence.[54]  Mr Officer described his experience as a designer and builder who has worked in the motorhome and bus industry for nine years, having designed and built two custom motorhomes.  He purports to be able to estimate the time required for each phase of a build and claims to have spent one-and-a-half hours inspecting Ms Symes’ coaster bus on 24 April 2024 - finding that the installation was “standard”, including one toilet, a waste-water tank, and a fresh water tank – not requiring any advanced or specialised techniques.  Mr Officer advanced an opinion on the invoice issued by Mr Wilkinson with respect to the hours charged, noting 61 hours apparently attributed to the installation of water and waste plumbing. He asserted “these time estimates seem disproportionately high and excessive, raising serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the billing”.  Mr Officer then further proffered his opinion on what “experienced tradespeople” should do, and about the overall 81 hours invoiced by Mr Wilkinson, stating that the work should have “taken approximately 2 days, or around 20 hours to complete – at the high end”. 

    [54] Exhibit A3.

30. The key difficulty with Mr Officer’s evidence is that it was directed by Ms Symes, being entirely reliant upon Ms Symes informing Mr Officer of the work completed by Mr Wilkinson.  It is not evident that Mr Officer spoke with Mr Wilkinson to obtain his perspective about any particular issues encountered in completing the work, nor to confirm the accuracy of Ms Symes’ instructions about the scope of work completed by Mr Wilkinson. 

1. Prior to the review hearing, Ms Symes informed the court that Mr Officer would not be available for examination – having previously indicated that he would be called as a witness.  This meant that it was not possible for me or Mr Wilkinson to ask probing questions of Mr Officer about his evidence. 

2. These matters diminish the weight I give to Mr Officer’s affidavit as probative of the hours worked, or that ought to have been worked and charged for by Mr Wilkinson.

   Ms Symes

3. Ms Symes had affirmed a further affidavit for the purposes of the review hearing, which I admitted into evidence.[55]  Pages 8 to 11 of her affidavit give specific details about Ms Symes’ recollection of hours worked and matters occurring on particular dates through December 2022 and January 2023 which did not correspond with Mr Wilkinson’s invoice.  At the hearing Ms Symes made oral submissions that on a number of the days for which she had been charged for both Mr Wilkinson and his son to attend only one of them was working, and she ought to have been charged a reduced rate.[56]  She noted that on the other invoices for other customers, which had been tendered by Mr Wilkinson some of the entries were marked with a “1” or “2” which she said indicated whether there were one or two workers present and contending this was to comply with the relevant regulations.[57] 

   [55] Exhibit A4.

   [56] T1110.1-16; T111.12-T116.24.

   [57] I was unable to find a specific provision requiring this under the Plumbers, Gas Fitters and Electricians Act 1995 (SA) or regulations. Nothing turns on this point.

4. I allowed Mr Wilkinson to question Ms Symes about her further evidence.  The following topics were covered:

   ·the extent to which Ms Symes had requested Mr Wilkinson to perform work in addition to the original scope of work that they had discussed at their meeting on 25 October 2022, during which Ms Symes resisted the proposition put to her by Mr Wilkinson that additional work had been performed and insisted that the additional work was part of the installation of the plumbing lines and gas connection;[58]

   ·the extent to which Ms Symes kept any records of the hours worked by Mr Wilkinson and his son on the bus, which Ms Symes conceded she did not keep records of “every drop in and hour that [he] attended the property” and referred to “missing information” in Mr Wilkinson’s text messages as to his “whereabouts”;[59]

   ·Ms Symes not communicating with any precision any “ceiling budget” to Mr Wilkinson, though Ms Symes maintained her position that Mr Wilkinson provided her with a “verbal contract” on a “daily rate” and that she was unaware of his “hourly rate”, though acknowledging that Mr Wilkinson had “refused to provide a written quote” and told her that it would be “two to three days tops of plumbing work” (noting the gas work was separate to this).  Ms Symes agreed that she did not obtain any other quotes for the plumbing and gas fitting work;[60]

   ·the fitting of the rear tanks and the brackets used to install them, whether silicone was used on the kitchen tap or a “rubber O-ring”.[61]

   [58] T54-T61.

   [59] T61-T62.

   [60] T63-T64.

   [61] T64-T68.

5. Ms Symes was somewhat truculent in the evidence she gave when questions were asked through me by Mr Wilkinson.  I accept that is not an unusual reaction when two individuals are in vehement disagreement and personally involved in protracted litigation against one another.  Much of what she said in response to questions asked of her was in the form of a submission and did not constitute evidence. That said, I remained conscious that strict rules of evidence did not apply, and I was to manage the hearing without regard to technicalities and legal forms. Ms Symes did make a guarded concession that she had not questioned what Mr Wilkinson was doing on the bus - and that was an error on her part for “trusting”.[62] 

   [62] T74.27-30.

6. It is relevant to my determination about whether the hours were excessive to also consider the evidence Ms Symes gave about the additional jobs she asked Mr Wilkinson to do while he was working on the bus.[63]  The parties agreed that the main scope of the engagement required him to install the hot and cold pipe work to the appliances and fixtures, the gas pipework through the bus, from the gas bottle to the gas cooktop and the hot water system, and to provide a gas compliance certificate.  Mr Wilkinson submitted that there were a number of jobs he attended to which were ‘additional tasks’ and would not be captured in the usual description of the plumbing and gas fitting work for conversion of a bus, such as attaching tapware to the sink and the shower, making a hole for a filler cap in the side of the bus, installing a robe hook, shower hose and rail, tapware for the shower, wood trimmers for the shower tapware, and providing a connection for mains pressure.  In her response, Ms Symes generally accepted that those additional tasks were attended to but claimed that she had considered them to be part of the plumbing work Mr Wilkinson was engaged to carry out.[64] 

   [63] Also see the affidavit of Ms Symes affirmed on 7 April 2025 (Exhibit A4) at [6].

   [64] T55.9-T61.15.

7. Though I found Ms Symes to be honest, much of her evidence was necessarily based upon her own recollection of events relevant to the hours Mr Wilkinson and his son worked and what they did during those time.  Memories (without other contemporaneous evidence) are at risk of reconstruction, often occurring subconsciously, and can be infected by speculation as to what could have occurred or should have occurred.[65]

   [65] Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315.

   Consideration – hours worked

8. There are inherent problems for consumers when pricing is based upon hourly rates charged by service providers for uncapped hours because such a price mechanism does not then incentivise efficiency; the cure for consumers is either entering into a fixed price contract or carefully monitoring progress.  Neither cure was present in this case.

9. The evidence given by each of Mr Kanurski, Mr Chappell, Mr Officer and Ms Symes was directed to persuading me that either Mr Wilkinson and his son had not spent 81 hours working on the bus or, if they had, those hours charged were inflated (padded hours) and excessive. 

10. Although, I accept Ms Symes had a budget in mind for the work to be carried out by Mr Wilkinson, she failed to communicate that budget to Mr Wilkinson and it could not form part of their contract. 

11. Though each of Mr Kanurski, Mr Chappell, Mr Officer and Ms Symes expressed incredulity at the hours Mr Wilkinson has charged I am not prepared to find that he was dishonest in recording his hours or that he did not properly deliver the services (subject to the issue concerning defects which is separately addressed below). 

12. The cheaper quotes of other plumbers and gas fitters tendered by Ms Symes may show that she could have obtained the services at a lower price from other plumbers but they do not prove the hours charged by Mr Wilkinson were excessive.

13. I consider some of the so-called additional tasks raised by Mr Wilkinson would have contributed to the hours he charged Ms Symes; however, they may not have been matters which the other plumbers from whom Ms Symes obtained quotes were aware Mr Wilkinson also attended to.  In view of the answers Ms Symes gave to questions about these so-called additional tasks, I infer it is unlikely that she would have mentioned them to the other plumbers as also being performed by Mr Wilkinson because she considered they were part and parcel of the general fitting of the plumbing lines.  To the extent relevant to assessing hours spent, I also take this into account in considering the cheaper quotes from the other plumbers and gas fitters. 

14. As I have noted already, there were also difficulties with the evidence of each of Mr Kanurski and Mr Chappell because they did not have any precise or clear recollection or contemporaneous record of the time they spent at the bus, let alone the time Mr Wilkinson and his son worked on it.  Further, for the reasons I have explained, I am not prepared to make any finding that there was an error caused by Mr Wilkinson or his son with the laying of the gas line that resulted in inflated hours being recorded on the invoice or which ought to have been provided free-of-charge. 

15. For Ms Symes, though I accept she was present for most of the time that Mr Wilkinson and his son worked on the bus, she did not maintain any record of those hours or put in place any system or procedure for those hours to be regularly checked and confirmed.  Also, like the magistrate, I find it to be unconvincing on the part of Ms Symes that prior to receiving Mr Wilkinson’s invoice on 9 January 2023 she did not feel an excessive number of hours had been worked.[66]  I do not find her evidence to be as convincing as the contemporaneous diary entries and records maintained by Mr Wilkinson. 

    [66] T74.4-30.

16. Further, I find it unusual that if Mr Wilkinson had made the errors, causing him to spend additional time working on the bus (particularly the significant errors that Ms Symes asserts relating to the laying of the gas pipe or line), that there would not have been text messages or other communications between them which referred to this, even if only in passing.  The evidence reveals that Ms Symes only indicated her concern about Mr Wilkinson’s workmanship once his invoice was issued. 

17. I find that there was a difference of opinion between Mr Wilkinson and Ms Symes about the laying of the gas pipe or gas line, with Ms Symes seeking to establish it was erroneously laid in a way that caused extra work for the installation of the rear tanks and Mr Wilkinson not accepting that there was any error by he or his son.  I reject Ms Symes’ proposition that there was an error of this kind on the part of Mr Wilkinson or Jai that caused the reinstallation of the rear tanks.  I find it more probable than not that Mr Wilkinson had difficulty laying the gas pipe or line between the rear water tanks but that this was not necessarily an error or mistake on his part.

18. In view of these matters I have reached the same conclusion as the magistrate in preferring Mr Wilkinson’s account about the hours Mr Wilkinson and his son worked.  Mr Wilkinson’s account of his hours set out in his invoice were able to be established not only by reference to the oral evidence given in the Magistrates Court by he and Jai, but importantly it was also corroborated by contemporaneous entries in his diary, text messages and photographs consistent with him being at Ms Symes’ property for some of his diary entries.[67] 

    [67] Wilkinson v Symes [2023] SAMC 133 at [27], [29].

19. At paragraph 45 above, I have already taken into account the concession made by Mr Wilkinson in the Magistrates Court to reduce his invoiced amount for days Jai was not in attendance, as well as the discrepancy for the 17 January 2025 diary entry. That concession was for $350 reduction of the invoiced amount.

    (c)     Whether there was an excessive charge for materials?

20. The invoice issued by Mr Wilkinson set out 81 hours (units) for labour at $10,530 (GST inclusive) plus for materials $2,400.45 (GST inclusive). Ms Symes claims that she was charged for materials listed on the invoice that were not used,[68] and that the cost of the materials were not realistic of the job required.[69] 

    [68] Written Case on Minor Civil Review filed by Ms Symes on 16 May 2025 (FDN 24).

    [69] Affidavit of Ms Symes affirmed 10 July 2023 (Exhibit A1 in CIV-23-1879)

21. In her affidavit affirmed 25 October 2023,[70] the day before the first review hearing, Ms Symes produced a quote from Reece dated 23 October 2023 which purports to set out prices for the same kinds of materials listed on Mr Wilkinson’s invoice.  The quote sets out a total price for materials of $1,118.53; however, significantly, it only provides a quote for one unit of each item – for example, there were 16 “speedfit conn elbows” in the invoice for a total of $168.00 (at $10.50 per unit) and this item appeared on the Reece quote (specified for 1/4 inch) at $5.45 – being for one unit.[71]  Further, it is not clear to me whether this is an identical item to that used by Mr Wilkinson; at the first review hearing Mr Wilkinson gave evidence that “a lot of the items are incorrect”.[72]  Ms Symes submitted at the earlier review hearing that the quote showed a “significant upcharge on a lot of those items”, and that some items included duplications of materials that were included with other items (for example, the “pigtail” with the LPG gas regulator).  I note there is also a delivery charge for the Reece quote of $66.00 for each delivery, which is not separately charged by Mr Wilkinson but must be factored into the overall reasonableness of the cost of materials he supplied to Ms Symes.[73] 

    [70] Set out in the book of documents as document number A4.

    [71]   I have assumed that Ms Symes is not contending that only one unit of each item was required by Mr Wilkinson, and her purpose in tendering the Reece pricing is to price check the equivalent items on Mr Wilkinson’s invoice.

    [72] T10.35-36 (26/10/2023).

    [73]   This is consistent with the evidence given by Mr Wilkinson at the earlier review hearing: T11.3-7 (26/10/2023).

22. At the (second) review hearing Ms Symes relied upon the quote from Build, Develop & Construct[74] as itemising each separate product and its price to indicate the alleged inflated charges of Mr Wilkinson for materials, contending that it would also be more conservative because it was based upon 2025 prices.  The overall Build, Develop & Construct price is given as $7,853.58 (including GST), with the materials appearing to make up $1,890.00 (excluding GST) or $2,080.09 (including GST), though how the total price is arrived at is not entirely clear.  No detailed attention was given to this issue at the hearing, other than to point to the excessive overall price charged by Mr Wilkinson.  When the total price for the materials $2,080.09 (inclusive of GST) on this quote is compared to the total price of materials on Mr Wilkinson’s invoice $2,400.45, I do not consider the difference of $320.36 to be significant.  Mr Wilkinson submitted the materials he used were different but did not provide details and claimed they were “in line with retail prices”.[75]  This differs to the evidence Mr Wilkinson gave at the first review hearing where he confirmed he applied a mark-up to these materials.[76]

    [74] Exhibit A6.

    [75] T133.7-26.

    [76] Hearing before Judge Slattery on 26 October 2023, T10.25-.32.

23. I accept that Mr Wilkinson’s charges for materials were higher than Ms Symes may have been able to independently source.  However, that does not mean Mr Wilkinson is not entitled to charge for those materials, including an uplift for the cost of him sourcing them. That said, I am not satisfied that this aspect of the contract was clearly agreed between Mr Wilkinson and Ms Symes.  If Mr Wilkinson wished to apply a mark-up to materials he supplied, which I am satisfied he applied, then it should have formed part of his contract terms.  In those circumstances it is appropriate for me to assess the amount payable to Mr Wilkinson on a quantum meruit basis.[77]

    [77] Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221, 256.

24. On a quantum meruit assessment I apply a broad-axe approach to reducing the materials component of Mr Wilkinson’s invoice by fifteen percent (rounded to $360, inclusive of GST).

    (d)Whether there were defects in the work undertaken by Mr Wilkinson for Ms Symes which have caused Ms Symes loss?

25. Ms Symes brought a cross claim against Mr Wilkinson in the Magistrates Court concerning alleged defects in his work.  She maintained her claim on review. The two key issues relating to defects raised at the review hearing can be summarised as:

    ·the wrongly placed vent on the back wall of the bus, which Ms Symes claims Mr Wilkinson directed her to cut in that place;

    ·the performance of non-compliant work and the failure to issue a certificate of compliance.[78]

    [78] Strictly, the failure to issue a certificate of compliance constitutes a breach of contract rather than a defect.

    Vent installed at the rear of the bus

26. Ms Symes alleges that Mr Wilkinson advised her on the 9^th of November 2022 about the gas vents for her bus and that he told her she needed two vents; one with a high position to be cut at the rear of the bus and the other with a low position to be cut in the stairwell; and she told him she would cut these and install them herself to save costs.[79]  Ms Symes claims Mr Wilkinson helped her measure the depth and width of the two spaces and she sent pictures of the vents she proposed purchasing to Mr Wilkinson to confirm they were correct.  The second vent at the rear of the bus and not at the side, and Ms Symes says Mr Wilkinson oversaw her doing this.  Ms Symes claims it will cost her in the order of $2,600 to have this repaired.[80] 

    [79] Exhibit A4 – affidavit of Ms Symes dated 7 April 2025 p 8.

    [80] T77.35 and T78.21.

27. In the Magistrates Court Mr Wilkinson rejected Ms Symes’ claim about the extent of his involvement in the cutting of the rear vent. He also relied on Jai’s evidence of having heard Mr Wilkinson tell Ms Symes that one vent should go in the step-well of the bus and one should go on the driver’s side wall, towards the rear of the bus.  The magistrate was not persuaded that there were material facts to support any cause of action by Ms Symes against Mr Wilkinson in relation to this matter.

28. At the review hearing Mr Officer’s affidavit noted the incorrect placement of the vent at the rear of the bus and the potential for cosmetic damage and corrosion, as well as the carbon monoxide poisoning risk.[81]  Mr Officer’s evidence is of limited probative value, other than to proffer the opinion of a non-expert about the incorrect fitting of the rear gas vent.  Mr Officer is not in a position to know whether Mr Wilkinson advised Ms Symes to fit the vent to the rear of the bus.

    [81] Exhibit A3 affidavit of Mr Officer affirmed on 4 April 2025 – paragraph 7.

29. The evidence relied upon by Ms Symes at the review hearing, together with my review of the earlier evidence heard in the Magistrates Court, does not persuade me that Ms Symes has made out any cause of action against Mr Wilkinson in relation to this matter.  I agree with the magistrate and do not find Mr Wilkinson liable for the incorrect fitting of the rear vent to Ms Symes’ bus.

    Non-compliant work and certificate of compliance

30. Ms Symes gave evidence at the hearing that she had incurred costs to engage another plumber to attend to repair non-compliant work, which she alleges included some non-compliant work of Mr Wilkinson.  She alleged that Mr Wilkinson issued her with a certificate of “non-compliance” and that she was obliged to engage Heaps Good Plumbing at a cost of $650 to rectify the non-compliant works and to issue a certificate of compliance.[82]  The issues of non-compliance which Ms Symes held Mr Wilkinson responsible for relate to:

    ·no notification about ventilation issues;

    ·no notification about the cooktop requiring a heat shield;

    ·no notification about missing labelling or stickers (with an additional cost of approximately $50);

    ·no description about what was non-compliant around the cooktop to which Mr Wilkinson had connected the gas line;

    ·the certificate was not properly issued withing 30 days of the works being finished.[83]

    [82] T90.20-T91.11.

    [83] Exhibit A4, Affidavit of Ms Symes affirmed on 7 April 2025.

31. Mr Wilkinson conceded at the review hearing that supplying a compliance certificate to Ms Symes was part of his service.[84]  He also conceded that he had intended to replace the non-compliant flexi-hose to the gas cooktop with a compliant copper pipe but that he was not permitted to return to complete this work, and other final compliance work on the bus because by that time they were in dispute about the invoice.[85]  Instead, unhelpfully, Mr Wilkinson issued Ms Symes with a certificate of non-compliance for her bus.

    [84] T54.37-T55.2.

    [85] T54.37-T55.3.

1. In my opinion, Ms Symes has suffered a loss because Mr Wilkinson did not produce a certificate of compliance for the works he carried out on her bus and she had to engage another plumber and gas fitter to produce a certificate in respect of Mr Wilkinson’s workmanship.  By February 2023 I do not believe Mr Wilkinson intended to finalise outstanding works on the bus and issue Ms Symes with a certificate of compliance. 

2. In those circumstances, I find that Ms Symes is entitled to recover her loss in respect of Mr Wilkinson’s failure to provide her with a certificate of compliance. I assess that loss at $500 - being a portion of her costs in having a certificate of compliance issued to her from Heaps Good Plumbing, she would not have incurred most of that cost but for Mr Wilkinson not completing the works to make them compliant.

3. For completeness, I have not made any finding against Mr Wilkinson for the spilt silicone near to the kitchen tap or the insufficiency of the lip on the shower base,  as I could not be satisfied on the evidence that Mr Wilkinson was responsible for these alleged defects.

   (e)Whether it was appropriate for the Magistrate to have awarded Mr Wilkinson costs because he had not given Ms Symes 21 days’ notice prior to filing his claim in the Magistrates Court pursuant to the pre-action notice rules?

4. At the review hearing, Ms Symes argued that Mr Wilkinson did not provide 21 days’ notice pursuant to UCR 332.2 before commencing proceedings in the Magistrates Court and therefore should not be entitled to recover his costs.[86]  She also contended that the case ought not to have proceeded in the Magistrates Court without compliance with these pre-action steps.[87] I disagree with the latter contention, and as to the former, regarding costs, I have determined not to award any costs for the reasons I describe below.

   [86] T75.20-.22.

   [87] T105.29-32.

5. UCR 332.1 to 332.3, within Pt 2 of Ch 24 (Minor Civil Actions), prescribe pre-action steps in relation to such actions in the Magistrates Court.  UCR 332.2(4) provides that failure to serve a notice of intention to commence an action may affect an applicant’s entitlement to costs including recovering a filing fee, and UCR 332.3(2) provides that the failure of a respondent to comply with the pre-action response requirements of UCR 332.3 may be taken into account in determining any costs awarded in the action.[88]

   [88]   P Norman, Matters Taken into Account by Court in Exercising Discretion as to Costs: Principles and Practice of Costs (2025, Legal Costs SA).

6. Mr Wilkinson did not comply strictly with these requirements.  A letter of demand was sent on behalf of Mr Wilkinson to Ms Symes on 14 February 2023, and his statement of claim was subsequently filed in the Magistrates Court on 22 February 2023.  As the statement of claim was only filed 8 days after the letter of demand, Mr Wilkinson had not allowed for the prescribed 21 days’ notice to expire before issuing proceedings.  Mr Wilkinson submitted he had not waited for the 21 days because Ms Symes was proposing to depart South Australia in the bus.[89]

   [89] T120.12-T120.16.

7. UCR 341.1 provides that a successful party in a minor civil action is entitled to costs on the Minor Civil costs scale in Sch 6 Pt 4 unless the Court finds proper cause exists to make no order as to costs for failure to comply with Pt 2 of Ch 24.[90]

   [90] Ibid.

8. The magistrate awarded costs in Mr Wilkinson’s favour because he was wholly successful in the Magistrates Court. However, as Ms Symes has been partially successful on review, and keeping in mind the principles applicable for minor civil actions, I have determined no costs should be awarded in this case; the parties ought to bear their own costs. In reaching this position, I also take into account the pre-action notice shortcomings.

   Conclusion

9. Pursuant to s 38(7)(d)(ii) of the Magistrates Court Act, I rescind the judgment of the magistrate.  I substitute a judgment in favour of Mr Wilkinson for the lesser sum of $8,090.00, inclusive of interest. 

10. This amount comprises the amount originally claimed by Mr Wilkinson of $8,430.45 less: (i) $350 to represent the concession he made in the Magistrates Court for the days Jai did not work; (ii) $360 to reflect a quantum meruit assessment of the materials supplied; and (iii) $500 in respect of loss incurred by Ms Symes to obtain a certificate of compliance.[91]  As there was partial success on the part of Ms Symes, I have determined not to make any order as to costs.  I have applied a lump sum for pre-judgment interest of $870 in favour of Mr Wilkinson.[92]

    [91] UCR 182.1.

    [92] This broadly equates to 5% per annum for 29 months; UCR 182.3(1).

    Schedule – disputed hours summary

Invoiced hours and narration	Ms Symes’ submissions[93]	Mr Wilkinson’s responsive submissions[94]		Discrepancy
9 November 2022 (8.5 hours) First fix gas pipe.	Not disputed.	(no dispute)
10 November 2022 (1 hour) Connection to hot water service and cooktop.	Mr Wilkinson charged for one hour for an error in cutting a hole in the floor for a stove pipe on the prior day, which he came back to correct; she also claims that the reference to “conns to” the “c/top” are inaccurate because the kitchen was not fitted at that time.	All gas works completed over 9 and 10 November 2022. The hole filled on 10 November 2022 was not what was charged for on that day, the charge was for gas works.		(disputed charge: 1 hour)
18 November 2022 (no charge).	Mr Wilkinson and Jai attended.	(no dispute)
14 December 2022 (8 hours) 1st fix hot water connection.	The apprentice (Jai) worked alone for 6 hours on the gas box, and it was incorrectly installed.	The work conducted on 14 December 2022 was not for gas works but the fitting of the hot and cold pipework.		(disputed charge: rate for apprentice only for 6 hours)
20 December 2022  (3 hours) fit pump, filter and kitchen tap.	The work was recompleting the gas regulator work within the gas box which should have been provided free-of-charge, and also disputes the charge for 3 hours on that day because she says Mr Kanurski arrived at 5.20 pm that day and they were no longer there, and Mr Chappell had been there until shortly prior to 5.00 pm.	(see above)		(disputed charge: 3 hours)
Invoiced hours and narration	Ms Symes’ submissions	Mr Wilkinson’s responsive submissions	Discrepancy
21 December 2022  (10 hours) show tap/w iso kit/wc tank	Mr Wilkinson should have charged this as a standard day of 8 hours only.	(disputed charge: 2 hours)
23 December 2022 (8.5 hours) to fit tanks.	Mr Wilkinson arrived at about 11.15 am on this day at the time they were leaving for her son’s birthday party at Castle Plaza, and that he had indicated something needed to be checked on the bus that she thought should not take more than 5 minutes; and no work should have been charged because this was her son’s birthday and it was made clear no work was to be done on that day.  She claims to have returned at about 6 pm that day and the photographs the magistrate accepted as evidence of Mr Wilkinson working that day did not show any work progressed but panels inside a shed unrelated to this work.	The urgency of the job is entirely inconsistent with Ms Symes telling Mr Wilkinson that she did not wish him to work at all on 23 December 2022.	(disputed charge:  8.5 hours)
28 December 2022 (8 hours) pipes water tank inlet.	No specific dispute – but see below re fitting tanks.	Not specified.
29 December 2022  (4.5 hours) w/tank inlet & outlet.	They did not start work until after 1.30 pm and left before 5 pm and she claimed she should have been charged for 3 hours work and not 4.5 hours.	(disputed charge: 1.5 hours)
30 December 2022  (9 hours). Water tank inlet and outlet.	No specific dispute – but see below re fitting tanks.	(not specified)

[93] Affidavit of Ms Carly Symes (FDN 24) filed on 16 May 2025. T96, T103, T110-114.

[94] T120-141.

Invoiced hours and narration	Ms Symes’ submissions	Mr Wilkinson’s responsive submissions		Discrepancy
21 to 30 December 2022 (as above)	In excess of 30.5 hours have been charged to this time for works predominantly recorded as relating to the water tanks: 21st (10 hours), 23rd (8.5 hours), 28th (8 hours), 29th (4.5 hours), and 30th (9 hours) to the tanks, with easy-to-install “John Guest” push-fit fittings making these hours “unreasonable to claim”.	(not specified)
4 January 2023     (5 hours) v/pipe, comp w pipe c/show plug.	Cannot recall Mr Wilkinson working this day, though she accepts he may have called in at different times throughout the day when Mr Kanurski was working there.	Conceded in Magistrates Court that he worked alone (without Jai).		(disputed charge: rate for Mr Wilkinson only to apply to 5 hours)
6 January 2023  (5.5 hours) start wastepipe kitchen/shower.	The apprentice was still not working on this day due to being sunburnt and Mr Wilkinson worked alone, and the filler cap had still not arrived.		Conceded in Magistrates Court.		(disputed charge: rate for Mr Wilkinson only to apply to 5.5 hours)
9 January 2023   (no diary entry).	Ms Symes alleges Mr Wilkinson attended alone for about 3 hours of work on this day, though Mr Wilkinson has not charged Ms Symes for any work on this day.  Ms Symes relies upon an SMS message she received from Mr Wilkinson informing her that he would be late that day due to a dental appointment and she recalls that he worked on the filler cap that day, having arrived at 1.00 pm.         Jai remained on sick leave until 17 January 2023.		Worked 10 January not  9 January, with Jai.		(disputed charge: rate for Mr Wilkinson only to apply)

Invoiced hours and narration	Ms Symes’ submissions	Mr Wilkinson’s responsive submissions	Discrepancy
10 January 2023 (5.5 hours) cut tank inlets, fixings.	Mr Wilkinson did not work on this day and alleges Mr Kanurski worked all day with Ms Symes.	Worked 10 January not 9 January, with Jai.	(disputed charge: 5.5 hours)
11 January 2023 (7.5 hours) fit tank, waste pipe, water inlet filler cap.	Mr Wilkinson came alone to fill the tank on this day and to test the filler cap.	Worked with Jai.	(disputed charge rate for Mr Wilkinson only to apply to 7.5 hours)
6 and 11 January 2023 (as above)	There are questionable entries for the fitting of a filler cap and completion of the wastewater connection, being for 13 hours for these two days, which she describes as a significant number of hours for the work required to do this by reference to the quotes from the other plumbers and by comparison to one of the invoices Mr Wilkinson tendered (3081 no. 97 – 14 December 2022), which was for removal of a hot water unit and fitting a new trim to a Kia motorhome that only took 4.5 hours in total.	(disputed charge: generally excessive)
17 January 2023   (1 hour) fit 350 Kpa pressure limiter valve.	The apprentice, Jai, worked alone at the mechanic’s shop and the diary entry only describes 30 minutes.	The work finished off over the 17th and 19th January 2023 for 2.5 hours for testing tanks and the hot water unit, leaving Jai at the mechanics to obtain a pressure limiter valve.	(disputed charge: 30 minutes - also rate for apprentice only)
19 January 2023 (1.5 hours) for testing valve pressure to hot water unit and fitting additional locking clips.	The apprentice worked alone for 15 minutes only to fit the locking clips, and she recalls this because Mr Chappell was there, and she was discussing the invoice with him when Jai arrived to fix the locking clips.	(see above)	(disputed charge: 1 hour and 15 minutes– also rate for apprentice only)