Vietheer v Holstein

[2025] QCAT 397

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Vietheer v Holstein [2025] QCAT 397

PARTIES:

REBECCA ANN VIETHEER

(applicant)

v

NATHAN PAUL HOLSTEIN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL 287-24

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Taylor

ORDERS:

1.     The respondent is to pay to the applicant $2,475 in restitution of that which the applicant paid to him for the carrying out of concreting works.

2.     The applicant is relieved from paying to the respondent any amount for the carrying out of the said concreting works.

3.     The remainder of the applicant’s claim is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – GENERALLY – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – MEASURE OF – where a homeowner contracted with a trade contractor for the construction of concreting works at the homeowner’s house – where there was no written contract between the parties –  where under statute the contract was of no effect – where the trade contractor was not licenced to perform the concreting works – where the concreting works was defective and consequential damage to the house was caused during the performance of the works – where the homeowner asserts that total demolition and reconstruction of the works is necessary – where the homeowner claimed restitution of that which she had paid to the unlicenced contractor – where the homeowner sought relief for payment of the remainder of the agreed amount – where the homeowner also claimed damages for the cost of demolition, reconstruction, and repair of the consequential damage

RESTITUTION – CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF INEFFECTIVE CONTRACTS – UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACT – BUILDING CONTRACT – where a homeowner contracted with a trade contractor for the construction of concreting works at the homeowner’s house – where the trade contractor was not licenced to perform the concreting works – where under statute in the absence of being licenced the contractor was not entitled to receive any monetary compensation for the performance of the work - where the homeowner claimed restitution of that which she had paid to the unlicenced contractor – where the homeowner sought relief against obligation to make any payment to the contractor
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS – DUTY OF CARE EXISTENCE – OTHER PARTICULAR CASES AND MATTERS – where a homeowner contracted with a trade contractor for the construction of concreting works at the homeowner’s house – where under statute the homeowner and the contractor were each required to ensure a written contract was signed and dated – where there was no written contract between the parties –  under statute the contract was of no effect – where if the contract would have been of effect the homeowner would have been entitled to statutory warranties in terms of the work performed - the concreting works was defective and consequential damage to the house was caused during the performance of the works – the homeowner asserts…