Willis v Stone Galleria Pty Ltd

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Willis v Stone Galleria Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 11

PARTIES:

LEONARD WILLIS 

(applicant)

v

STONE GALLERIA PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL097-21

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

7 January 2025

HEARING DATE:

22 April 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Munasinghe

ORDERS:

1.     Stone Galleria Pty Ltd must pay Leonard Willis the amount of $12,844.07 within twenty-eight (28) days.

2.     Stone Galleria Pty Ltd must pay Leonard Willis costs fixed at $352 within twenty-eight (28) days.

3.     The respondent’s counterapplication is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – where applicant engaged respondent to conduct building work – where parties entered into a written contract which was not signed – where the parties failed to comply with the requirements of sch 1B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) – where contract was of no effect due to said noncompliance.

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – where applicant engaged respondent to conduct building work – where work was defective and incongruent with plans and specifications – where tribunal found respondent breached duty of care owed to the applicant.

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 4, s 9, s 11

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 1B

Chau’s & Sons Pty Ltd t/as Holiday Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Qld v Karam [2024] QCAT 476

Judd v McPhail [2022] QCAT 125

Vaiao v Sharkie [2019] QCAT 264

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

1. The respondent is a building contractor carrying on the business of supplying and installing natural stone products.

2. It has two directors. They are:

   (a)Indu Kant Sharma; and

   (b)Rekha Kumari Sharma.

3. The respondent supplied, cut, and installed granite benchtops in the applicant’s kitchen and laundry (‘the work’).

4. The applicant contends the work is defective. Specifically, he submits:

   (a)the hole the respondent cut into a benchtop it supplied to accommodate the applicant’s sink does not match the profile of the sink.

   (b)the hole that the respondent cut into a benchtop it supplied is too small to flush mount the applicant’s preferred brand of cooktop.

   Uncontested chronology of events

5. On 15 October 2018, the applicant, in the company of Mrs Sharma, attended the respondent’s industrial yard to choose a stone slab for his kitchen benchtops. Mrs Sharma suggested that he should return on a day that Mr Sharma was available to shift the slabs. She explained that it was best to inspect the different slabs individually, and choose the one the applicant wanted, as no two were the same.

6. On 18 October 2018, the applicant sent Mrs Sharma an email containing the dimensions for his benchtops.

7. On 22 October 2018, the applicant returned to the respondent’s industrial yard and choose a granite slab (‘the slab’) which he professes “had a great amount of detail in it”. Mr Sharma was present and expressed to the applicant his opinion that the applicant had chosen the best piece.