Wetlock Industries Pty Ltd v Brown - [2013] QCAT 486

CITATION:

Wetlock Industries Pty Ltd v Brown [2013] QCAT 486

PARTIES:	Wetlock Industries Pty Ltd (Applicant)
V
Cain Brown (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

BDL109-13

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

HEARING DATE:

23 August 2013

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Andrew McLean Williams, Member

DELIVERED ON:

3 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The respondent is to pay the applicant $3,958.94 within 28 days of the date of these orders.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING MATTERS - Oral agreement only for regulated building work - in circumstances legally requiring a written agreement - Claim by builder for reasonable remuneration in these circumstances.

Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 s 30
Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 s 77

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:	Ms Julie Shannon
RESPONDENT:	No appearance by or for the respondent

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Wetlock Industries Pty Ltd trades as “Wetlock Waterproofing”, and are a company that installs waterproofing systems and other protective membrane systems. In early 2013, Wetlock Industries were engaged by the body corporate of “Old Burleigh”, an apartment complex at Broadbeach on the Gold Coast, to remove existing tiles and then lay a new waterproof membrane on the roof-top balcony of Unit 16, at Old Burleigh.
At that time, Mr Cain Brown was the owner of Unit 16. The unit has since been sold to a third party. The rooftop balcony of unit 16 had a large, disused spa pool, with concrete surround. Mr Brown wished to remove the spa pool, as part of his plan to renovate the deck area, in aid of his preparing unit 16 for sale. Mr Cain requested that Wetlock Industries do these demolition works on his behalf, as it seemed convenient, given Wetlock Industries were already scheduled to undertake some demolition works on the same roof-top balcony on behalf the body corporate.
There was no appearance at the hearing of this matter on 23 August 2013 by or on behalf of the respondent, who has moved overseas to live in Poland. Yet, in his written submissions, Mr Cain said that he had discussions on-site with Jamie, a leading hand from Wetlock Industries, and it was agreed with Jaimie that the work would be done by Wetlock Industries. Mr Cain also says that he had it in mind that these works would probably cost around $500, yet he concedes that the parties never actually agreed on a figure, only agreeing that Wetlock could do the job, and that he (meaning Mr Cain) “could throw some cash their way” afterwards.
In the end, demolition of the spa and its surrounds was a much bigger job than Mr Brown had ever anticipated. Once the job was completed, Wetlock Industries presented an invoice claiming $5,152.45. Ms Shannon, director of Wetlock Industries says that the job took 59.5 man hours, and hence the labour cost was unusually high, primarily because all of…

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 Wetlock Industries Pty Ltd v Brown 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: [2013] QCAT 486
Decision Date: 3 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wetlock Industries Pty Ltd brought a claim against Brown for reasonable remuneration for building work carried out on Brown's property. Brown argued that the contract between the parties was oral and, as such, not enforceable. The dispute came before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The primary issue for the tribunal was whether Wetlock could claim reasonable remuneration for the work done under an oral agreement when the law required a written agreement for such work.

The tribunal found that under section 30 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000, regulated building work must be the subject of a written agreement. The absence of a written agreement did not, however, mean that Wetlock was unable to recover reasonable remuneration. Instead, the tribunal concluded that Wetlock could claim the reasonable value of the work done if it could be demonstrated that Brown had accepted and enjoyed the benefits of the work. The tribunal noted that Brown had accepted the work and continued to occupy and use the building as if the work had been completed to his satisfaction. Therefore, Wetlock was entitled to reasonable remuneration for the work done.

The tribunal ordered that Brown pay Wetlock $3,958.94 within 28 days of the date of the orders. The tribunal found that this amount represented the reasonable value of the work done by Wetlock, taking into account the evidence presented by both parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent is to pay the applicant $3,958.94 within 28 days of the date of these orders.

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.