Walker v Rosendahl t/as Rosendahl Constructions

CITATION: Walker v Rosendahl t/as Rosendahl Constructions & Anor [2016] QCATA 88

PARTIES:	James Killen Walker (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Ivan Rosendahl t/as Rosendahl Constructions Garden City Sheds t/as The Shed Company (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL004 -15

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: 22 May 2015

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Justice D Thomas, President

DELIVERED ON: 8 January 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL - MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – whether grounds for leave to appeal

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 28, s 142

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
O’Brien v Gladstone Regional Council [2015] QCATA 82

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:  James Walker appeared on his own behalf

FIRST RESPONDENT:                No appearance

SECOND RESPONDENT:  Bryce Hunt appeared for Garden City Sheds

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 10 June 2008, Mr James Walker entered into a contract to purchase a shed with Garden City Sheds trading as The Shed Company (“The Shed Company”). The Shed Company invoiced Mr Walker $16,250. The dispute between Mr Walker and The Shed Company relates to whether this contract included erecting the shed, or just the supply of the shed materials.

2. In April 2013 (almost 5 years after the contract was signed), Mr Walker contacted Mr Bryce Hunt at The Shed Company to ask him who he recommended to erect the shed. Mr Hunt nominated Ivan Rosendahl. Mr Walker engaged Mr Rosendahl to build the shed, which Mr Rosendahl did. Mr Rosendahl invoiced Mr Walker $4,860. Mr Walker did not pay the invoice, so Mr Rosendahl filed a claim in the Tribunal (the original proceeding).

3. Mr Walker applied to join The Shed Company as a party to Mr Rosendahl’s claim, on the basis that The Shed Company was liable to pay Mr Rosendahl’s costs of erection pursuant to the contract of 10 June 2008. On 24 July 2014, a Magistrate sitting in the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of the Tribunal ordered Mr Walker pay Mr Rosendahl $5,540.55 for erection of the shed (plus interest and filing fees), on the basis that it was Mr Walker who had engaged Mr Rosendahl.

4. The question before the Magistrate turned to whether The Shed Company was liable to compensate Mr Walker for the cost of construction. The contract contained contradictory clauses. The quote for $16,250 had, under “Other Inclusions/Extras”, the words “Erection Cost Included:” followed by a blank space. The attached “Condition of Sale” had the “Start and Completion Dates” of building crossed out, and “N/A” written where the builder’s licence number should be inserted. Mr Hunt’s explanation for the contradiction was that the quote contained a typographical error. The word “not” should have been included in “Erection Cost [Not] Included:”, and that this was consistent with the striking out of the “Start and Completion Dates” as no building dates were ever contemplated. On the…