Tide Constructions Pty Ltd v Hakuna Matata Tiling (Qld) Pty Ltd - [2022] QCAT 146

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Tide Constructions Pty Ltd v Hakuna Matata Tiling (Qld) Pty Ltd [2022] QCAT 146

PARTIES:

TIDE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

(applicant)

v

HAKUNA MATATA TILING (QLD) PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL015-21

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 April 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Deane

ORDERS:

1.     The Tribunal record is corrected to reflect that the applicant is Tide Constructions Pty Ltd.

2.     Hakuna Matata Tiling (Qld) Pty Ltd is to pay Tide Constructions Pty Ltd the amount of $1,980 (incl GST) by 4:00pm on 31 May 2022.

3.     Any application for costs is to be made by filing in the Tribunal two (2) copies and giving one (1) copy of any submissions and evidence to be relied upon to the other party by 4:00pm on 31 May 2022.

4.     If an application for costs is made in accordance with order no 3:

(a)     the other party is to file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and give one (1) copy to the party making the application any submissions and evidence in response by 4:00pm on 21 June 2022.

(b)     the application will be determined on the papers and without an oral hearing unless a party requests an oral hearing not before 4:00pm on 21 June 2022.

5.     If no application for costs is made in accordance with order no 3 then there will be no order as to costs in this proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – MEASURE OF – Domestic Building Dispute between a contractor and sub-contractor – whether defective work – whether rectification reasonable and necessary – cost of reasonable and necessary rectification

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77, Schedule 1B s 1, s 3, s 4, s 5, s 13, s 14, Schedule 2

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009
(Qld), s 38
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation

2019 (Qld), s 5, s 8

Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613

Canavan v Sutton [2020] QCAT 374
Gates v The City Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited (1986) 160 CLR 1
Tabcorp Holdings Limited v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Documents filed by the applicant and online ASIC, ABN lookup and Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) license searches indicate that the correct name of the applicant is Tide Constructions Pty Ltd (Tide). The Tribunal amended the name of the applicant and the respondent at a directions hearing.[1] I order the Tribunal record to be further amended.
[1]Directions made 24 June 2021.
Tide, a licensed building contractor, engaged Hakuna Matata Tiling (Qld) Pty Ltd, a licensed tiler, to perform tiling work at a client’s home. Tide contends that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tide Constructions Pty Ltd v Hakuna Matata Tiling (Qld) Pty... 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: [2022] QCAT 146
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this domestic building dispute, Tide Constructions Pty Ltd, a licensed building contractor, brought proceedings against Hakuna Matata Tiling (Qld) Pty Ltd, a licensed tiler, in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) seeking an order that Hakuna Matata rectify the works or pay for the works to be performed and pay costs. The Tribunal found that Hakuna Matata had breached an informal contract with Tide by failing to ensure the trim gap complied with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) Guide. The Tribunal found that Hakuna Matata is to pay Tide the amount of $1,980 (incl GST) for damages for breach of an informal contract. The Tribunal found that the evidence before it was not sufficient to establish that other claimed defects were defective work or that Tide's rectification scope of works set out the reasonable and necessary works to rectify the defects. The Tribunal made directions to allow a party to make an application for costs in light of its reasons.

Orders