Thompson v Shen and Kao

Link copied
Case Copied 25 min read
CITATION: Thompson v Shen and Kao [2017] QCAT 33
PARTIES: Allan Thompson
(Applicant)
v
Howard Shen and May Kao
(Respondents)
APPLICATION NUMBER: BDL123-15
MATTER TYPE: Building matters
HEARING DATE: 21 June 2016
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Member Allen
DELIVERED ON: 6 February 2017
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: 1.    Mr Shen and Ms Kao are ordered to pay Mr Thompson the amount of $6,503.07 within 14 days
CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING MATTER – where building contractor unlicensed at time of entering agreement – where claim for reasonable remuneration for carrying out building work – where building contractor submitted copies of invoices for labour and materials – where expert evidence provided by respondent as to reasonable remuneration – whether building contractor satisfied onus of proof as to reasonable remuneration

Queensland Building and Construction Act 1991 (Qld), s 42, s 56AC, s 77

Cook Constructions P/L v SFS 007.298.633 P/L (formerly trading as Stork Food Systems Australasia P/L [2009] QCA 75

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT: Mr Thompson
RESPONDENT: Mr Shen and Ms Kao

REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:   Mr Thompson represented himself

RESPONDENT: Mr Wall of Counsel instructed by represented Mr Shen and Ms Kao.

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. Mr Thompson held a builder’s licence under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), the QBCC Act, until 8 October 2014 when it was revoked due to him becoming an excluded individual[1]. As a consequence of this it became unlawful for Mr Thompson to carry out, or undertake to carry out building work[2], as defined in the QBCC Act.

    [1]QBCC Act, s 56AC.

    [2]QBCC Act, s 42.

  2. Mr Thomspon entered a written agreement with Mr Shen and Ms Kao on 2 December 2014 to classify, organise and supervise  works specified by the owner in the scope of works in respect of Mr Shen and Ms Kao’s property at Clear Island on the Gold Coast. Mr Shen and Ms Kao were required to pay a deposit of $5,000 and a fee equal to 22.5% on top of all costs. With progress payments to be paid within five days. The deposit was paid on the signing of the agreement.

  3. The scope of works were as follows:-

    a)    To remove and remodel the walls as outlined in the final plan;

    b)    To prepare and install a new kitchen as outlined on the final kitchen plan;

    c)    To dismantle and remodel the 3 bathrooms as specified;

    d)    To prepare the floors for new tiling on ground floor and for floating timber floors upstairs;

    e)    To build a new timber deck on the pool side with a new frameless glass panel to the pool side;

    f)     To install new entrance doors and “crimsafe” screens throughout;

    g)    To install new balustrading sheeting TBC;

    h)   To install 2 new shade sails TBC;

    i)     New electrical installation as per plan TBC and

    j)     Total new internal paintwork and new door handles.

  4. Mr Thompson arranged for tradespeople, materials and labour to perform the work set out in the agreement and rendered tax invoices for the work,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thompson v Shen and Kao and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] QCAT 33
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thompson v Shen and Kao involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Thompson, a building contractor, and the defendants, Mr Shen and Ms Kao. Mr Thompson had performed building works for Mr Shen and Ms Kao but was not licensed as a building contractor at the time the agreement was entered into. Mr Thompson sought reasonable remuneration for the work he had performed. He provided copies of invoices for labour and materials as evidence of his claim. In response, the defendants presented expert evidence to challenge the reasonableness of the remuneration claimed by Mr Thompson.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Thompson had satisfied his onus of proving the reasonable remuneration for the building work he performed. This required the court to consider the invoices provided by Mr Thompson as well as the expert evidence presented by the defendants. The court had to assess the reasonableness of the remuneration claimed, taking into account the expert evidence and the nature of the work performed. The court found that Mr Thompson had provided sufficient evidence to support his claim for reasonable remuneration. The invoices and other evidence provided by Mr Thompson were deemed adequate to establish the amount claimed. The court was satisfied that the expert evidence did not sufficiently undermine the reasonableness of the remuneration claimed by Mr Thompson.

Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Mr Thompson. The defendants, Mr Shen and Ms Kao, were ordered to pay Mr Thompson the sum of $6,503.07 within 14 days of the judgment. The court found that Mr Thompson had discharged his onus of proof and was entitled to the reasonable remuneration for the work performed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Mr Shen and Ms Kao are ordered to pay Mr Thompson the amount of $6,503.07 within 14 days

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.