Von Fahland v Virk

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Von Fahland v Virk [2019] QCATA 178

PARTIES:

KAY VON FAHLAND

(applicant\appellant)

v

JOGESH INDER SINGH VIRK

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL351-18

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCDO135-17 (Caboolture)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

14 November 2019

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – where application for leave to appeal – where sole ground of appeal was the failure to consider and determine a significant part of the appellants claim – where the transcript of evidence of the proceeding below clearly showed the part of the claim was considered and rejected on grounds of lack of credibility

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77(2)

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Von Fahland was engaged by Mr Virk to perform excavation work at a house site. It involved demolition of an existing house and removal of vegetation on site and levelling of the ground. There was other work to be done such as removal of a swimming pool and filling the hole left, telephone disconnection and asbestos removal too.

2. Mr Von Fahland quoted $21,880 for the work in writing, which quote was accepted.

3. During the course of that work being performed significant additional work was identified as necessary by Mr Von Fahland. He maintained he agreed with Mr Virk to do the additional work. No price was set for it but he maintained Mr Virk promised to ‘look after’ him.

4. Mr Von Fahland did not give a quote for the cost of the extra work and nothing was set down in writing about it.

5. Mr Von Fahland said he had the extra work performed by subcontractors and he was charged by them for that. In turn he claimed $24,077.90 for the extra work from Mr Virk.

6. Mr Von Fahland did not complete the original work quoted for in writing. He performed some of it only. Mr Virk refused to pay for some of the original work and refused to pay for the extra work.

7. Mr Von Fahland filed an application in the tribunal to recover the cost of the extras of $24,077.90.

8. The matter suffered delay through a member constituted to hear the application falling seriously ill for some significant period of time. The tribunal was subsequently reconstituted and the matter was heard afresh before an Adjudicator on 6 November 2018.

9. The learned Adjudicator ordered Mr Virk to pay Mr Von Fahland an amount of $5,929 attributable to that part of the originally quoted work performed by Mr Von Fahland. There was no amount allowed for his claim for extras.

10. Mr Von Fahland wants to appeal that decision. Given this is an appeal from a decision made in the tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction, leave to appeal must first be obtained before any appeal proceeds.[1] 

    [1]QCAT Act,…