Williams v Queensland Building Services Authority - [2013] QCAT 589

CITATION:

Williams v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 589

PARTIES:	Barry Williams (Applicant)
v
Queensland Building Services Authority (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR269-11

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational Regulation matter
General administrative review matters
Building matters

HEARING DATE:

19 - 20 November 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Andrew McLean Williams, Member
David Paratz, Member

DELIVERED ON:

23 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of the QBSA made on 26 October 2011 that the Contract entered into between Mr Williams and Natasha and Israel Hayes on 26 May 2010 had been validly terminated by Natasha and Israel Hayes on 3 June 2011 is confirmed.

2. No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

Residential building dispute – termination of contract – whether properly terminated – entitlement of homeowner to terminate for failure to remedy breaches and for breach of statutory warranties – adjustment of completion date due to actions of homeowner, wet weather, and delays – whether work conducted to the standard reasonably expected of a licensed contractor – scope of works

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 ss 17, 20
Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 s 86(1)
Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 ss 18(6)(b), 18(10), 41, 43, 44, 90

Drake v Minister for Education (1979) 46 FLR 409, 24 ALR 577
Shi v Immigration Agency Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
QCoal P/L & Anor v Cliffs Coal P/L & Anor [2010] QSC 479
Velvet Glove Holdings Pty Ltd v Mount Isa Mines Limited [2011] QSC 95
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 337
Merhtens v Stega [2012] QCAT 176

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (If any):

APPLICANT:	Mr Allan Lonergan, of Counsel, instructed by Lenz Moreton Lawyers
RESPONDENT:	Mr Simon Formby, QBSA in-house Counsel

REASONS FOR DECISION
Preliminary

Mr Isaac Hayes and Ms Natasha Hayes are the owners of a residence at Brighton in Queensland, which they wished to renovate and extend. In May 2010 they engaged the Applicant Mr Williams, who was a registered builder, to be involved in the project.
This matter comes before QCAT as an Application to Review a decision, made on 26 October 2011, by the Authority.
A Hearing was conducted on 19 and 20 November 2012 before us. This is our joint decision.
On 26 October 2011, the QBSA determined that a Building Services Authority ‘Major Works’ Contract (the contract) entered into between Mr Williams and Natasha and Israel Hayes (the Homeowners) on 26 May 2010 had been validly terminated, by the Homeowners, on 3 June 2011. This decision had the effect that the Homeowners were thereby able to access the insurance scheme applicable to the contract, as is administered by the respondent authority. There are implications for Mr Williams, as a consequence of that insurance claim having been accepted, as the Authority may seek to recover monies paid from him.
Section 86(1) of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 has the effect that the aforementioned decision by the respondent authority is a ‘

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 Williams v Queensland Building Services Authority 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 589
Decision Date: 23 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams v Queensland Building Services Authority involved a dispute between the homeowner, Mr Williams, and the Queensland Building Services Authority (QBSA). Mr Williams had engaged Natasha and Israel Hayes to perform building works on his property. Following issues with the quality of the work and delays, Mr Williams sought to terminate the contract, which was subsequently terminated by Natasha and Israel Hayes. Mr Williams challenged the validity of the termination before the QBSA, which upheld the termination, leading to Mr Williams' appeal to the court.

The primary legal issues were whether the contract was properly terminated and whether Mr Williams was entitled to terminate due to the Hayes' failure to remedy breaches and their breach of statutory warranties. Additionally, the court had to determine if the completion date should be adjusted due to the homeowner's actions, wet weather, and delays, and whether the work met the standard reasonably expected of a licensed contractor. The scope of the works was also considered.

The court examined the contract terms, statutory provisions, and the circumstances surrounding the termination. It found that the contract was indeed validly terminated by the Hayes. The court held that the Hayes had failed to remedy breaches of the contract, and there were breaches of statutory warranties. It further determined that the completion date should be adjusted due to the homeowner's actions, adverse weather conditions, and delays. However, the court concluded that the work was generally performed to the standard expected of a licensed contractor. The court confirmed the QBSA's decision that the contract termination was valid.

The final orders were that the decision of the QBSA, affirming the termination of the contract, was confirmed. No order was made regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

2. No order as to costs.

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.