Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Amor t/as Brizroof v Lendvai[2016] QCAT 328

Amor t/as Brizroof v Lendvai[2016] QCAT 328


Amor t/as Brizroof v Lendvai [2016] QCAT 328


Karen Amor t/as Brizroof



Michael Lendvai



MCDO0008-16 (Pine Rivers)


Other minor civil dispute matters


15 April 2016, 26 May 2016


Pine Rivers


Adjudicator Bertelsen


14 September 2016




  1. The Applicant pay to the Respondent the sum of $5,442.50.


Building and construction – roof replacement – contractor’s damage to premises in the course of roofing works undertaken – defective and worthless roof installation – damages recoverable by consumer



Karen Amor


Michael Lendvai



  1. [1]
    By application filed 12 January 2016, Karen Amor trading as Brizroof seeks payment of $4,114.00 as the balance payable in respect of quoted re-roofing work at the respondent, Michael Lendvai’s premises 42 Brydon Street, Highgate Hill.
  2. [2]
    By counterclaim filed 6 April 2016, the respondent, Michael Lendvai, seeks $3,690.50 as quoted repair costs for water damage to the internal entry ceiling of the premises occasioned by Brizroof’s inadequate covering of building works as well as $978.27 as the cost of finishing flashings which Brizroof removed and $1,625.80 as the cost of architectural mouldings requiring replacement in due course.

Background and Evidence

  1. [3]
    On 18 November 2015, Brizroof provided a re-roofing quote for $5,142.50, which included to ‘replace bottom parts of roof, supply & install Bluescope corrugated roof sheeting, supply & install all flashings to suit new roof and supply & install parapet flashings’. She said a deposit of $1,028.00 was paid and work commenced on 29 November 2015. Mr Brett George was the licenced roof installer responsible for the roof installation.
  2. [4]
    Ms Amor said that:
    1. part of the arrangement was that the respondent, Mr Lendvai, would remove the foam parapet rendered covers from the top of the building i.e. the mouldings, as well as a downpipe that had to be relocated;
    2. on Monday 30 November 2015 in accord with the quote payment of a further 20 per cent for materials delivery on Friday 27 November 2015 was requested; and
    3. despite non-payment, re-roofing work continued until Thursday 3 December 2015 when Mr Lendvai informed Mr George that he had no intention of paying due to storm damage he suffered on Sunday 29 November 2015.
  3. [5]
    She said the storm damage was suffered prior to Brizroof giving its quote; that was because Mr Lendvai had plasterers working at the premises when Mr George inspected initially prior to giving Brizroof’s quote. She added that Mr Lendvai was not happy with the flashings and so it was on the following day, Friday 4 December 2015 that ‘the guys went to go and get the flashings off and replace it with a tarp’. She said Brizroof was going to get another lot of flashings made up and requested payment but that Mr Lendvai was adamant that he was not going to pay any more money; that that’s when it became a dispute even though ‘the job was more than 80% completed and he still had not paid the materials delivery charge’.
  4. [6]
    Ms Amor said Mr George had asked Mr Lendvai if he had replaced the downpipe that he agreed to move prior to Brizroof commencing the re-roofing but Mr Lendvai had not. Some days later, she became aware that a complaint had been made to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) and that in the meantime Mr Lendvai had engaged another contractor which she said ‘is against the QBCC thing’.
  5. [7]
    With respect to materials delivered she said:
    1. that ‘they’re installed on his roof’;
    2. that only one part of the flashings along the parapet was taken out;
    3. that the rest of the roof is totally installed and completed’; and
    4. Ms Amor asserted that amounted to 80 per cent of the job done.
  6. [8]
    Mr Lendvai stated that when Mr George initially attended the premises in order to quote that there was ‘no talk of removing a downpipe’. He said:
    1. it would not have made any difference whether or not the downpipe was removed;
    2. that work actually started on Tuesday 24 November 2015, the same day as materials were delivered to his premises;
    3. that re-roofing work was carried out on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday;
    4. that on Thursday 26 November 2015 ‘they actually left the house with the flashings on the lower roof cut back’;
    5. that no work was carried out on Friday 27 November 2015;
    6. that it was Sunday 29 November 2015 that the storm event occurred and water came into the house.
  7. [9]
    He said:

There was a downpipe on the house which comes from the very upper top roof which was the roof that I wasn’t getting redone and it feeds down onto the lower roof and because the flashings were actually cut back on the lower roof where the downpipe expels onto that lower roof and because the flashings were cut back the water actually found its way back up underneath – up the roof sheet underneath the flashings and into my lower roof ceiling cavity… water coming into the entry through the light fitting in that entry.

  1. [10]
    He added:
    1. that the entry area was where he had previously had water damage to the walls not the ceiling;
    2. that such had previously been the subject of an insurance claim;
    3. that wall and skirting damage had been totally completed and finished well before the arrival of Mr George upon the scene.
  2. [11]
    Mr Lendvai said:
    1. he was able to work out the source of water ingress;
    2. that he got some left over scrap roofing;
    3. jumped out on the roof, put the tin underneath the downpipe and it stopped the water immediately’.
  3. [12]
    He said on the Sunday evening he spoke to Mr George who indicated ‘there’s nothing I can do about it’.
  4. [13]
    Mr Lendvai said:
    1. he contacted Mr George early Monday morning to ‘go through the damage that had occurred the night before’ but that Mr George indicated he had to collect pillar capping and would not be able to attend until that afternoon;
    2. he said he then received that same Monday a text from Mr George saying ‘that he has just flashed and finished the bottom roof, that he’s unwell’ i.e. that Mr George had ‘installed the flashings on the lower roof where the water actually came into the house’;
    3. that Mr George did not attend the premises until the following Friday 4 December 2015 when parapet wall flashings and cappings were removed. Pillar capping was not installed.
  5. [14]
    Mr Lendvai said he arranged for the plasterer who did the previous insurance work to attend the premises on Wednesday 2 December 2015 to quote to repair the entry ceiling damage. He said the plasterer indicated the ceiling damage was quite severe costing around $2,000 to repair. With respect to the upper level roof Mr Lendvai said tarps were installed once upper level flashings had been removed.

Witness – Brett Adam George

  1. [15]
    When Mr George first attended the premises to quote he said he observed a plasterer at work. He said Mr Lendvai wanted the old flashings completely removed but said he would not do that. Mr George told Mr Lendvai that he would ‘put a pressure seal i.e. the sheet will kick up the wall and have a little fold out and then we seal across the top which was industry standard’.
  2. [16]
    Mr George said that Mr Lendvai informed him that he wanted to remove the foam parapet cover in order to flash over the parapet and then reinstall a replacement foam parapet. Mr George said:
    1. he would not do that;
    2. that there was never anything in his quote about removing or installing a rendered covered parapet;
    3. that it was not possible to remove the parapet cover without damaging it and that it was ‘outside of our QBCC licence’;
    4. that subsequently when attending site it had been removed.
  3. [17]
    He said Mr Lendvai indicated that he was going to relocate a downpipe which was causing water leak.
  4. [18]
    Mr George could not recall receiving a text message from Mr Lendvai on Sunday 29 November 2015 requesting a meeting the following day, Monday and admitted as possibly correct sending a text to Mr Lendvai on the Monday stating that he had installed the flashings on the bottom roof stating that he was ‘attending the property to continue on with the job you engaged us to do’.
  5. [19]
    Mr George asserted Mr Lendvai was continually interrupting workmen onsite, such that he was ‘driving myself and my-and the guys who worked for me completely insane’.
  6. [20]
    He said he told Mr Lendvai that he was not to engage another contractor to finish the work as Brizroof had the right to do so. He asserted Mr Lendvai’s invoices showed that he had ‘organised within a day, a day and a half, two days of us pulling out of the job, he’d engaged another contractor’.
  7. [21]
    Mr George agreed that lower level roof flashings were cut back on Thursday 26 November 2015; that ‘it would have been as the sheets were progressing and being placed in’. He did not think that would have allowed water ingress ‘because the ends of the sheets are bent up’. He considered water ingress happened from the downpipe that Michael said ‘he was going to move’. He added that ‘bending up the sheets is – is the first – is the priority barrier to stop water from flushing down into any walls’. He considered the roof was ‘probably about 6 maybe 8 degrees. You know, you’d have to have enormous winds to blow it up over a roll’. He believed the damage that Mr Lendvai spoke about happened before he attended the premises or as a result of the downpipe that Mr Lendvai told him was going to be relocated not being removed but he was not sure.

Further Evidence

  1. [22]
    Brizroof was given an opportunity to respond to Mr Lendvai’s counter-claim filed 6 April 2015 but only received by Ms Amor on 11 April 2016. In the event the response was filed on 29 April 2016 with a further counter-claim filed by Mr Lendvai on 18 May 2016.
  2. [23]
    Mr Lendvai stated that Mr George’s claim that the ends of the sheets were installed bent up on the lower roof was not correct; that he had photos and building reports to prove that; that he did not believe that Mr George was even present when lower roof sheets were installed. He reiterated that the earlier episode of water damage to the entry came from a downpipe at the rear of the entry and that water entered at the base of the entry wall. It was to do with a totally separate downpipe he said. He also said the statement from the plasterer Larry Roberts and a statutory declaration from his real estate agent confirmed this chronology of events.
  3. [24]
    Mr Lendvai further reiterated:

The whole reason that the water did come in regardless of any downpipes was the fact that the flashings on the lower roof were cut back, they were incomplete and they were not adequately sealed or protected from the weather over that 3 and a half day period.

He said it was never the case that he was going to move the downpipe and asserted that the positioning of the downpipe was no different to many other houses of a similar nature in the same street. He produced photos in that regard.

  1. [25]
    Included in Mr Lendvai’s material there were two reports. One by Ardent Builders dated 11 April 2015 under the hand of Matt Thompson and one by Glasco Professional Services dated 16 May 2016 under the hand of Craig Wilson.
  2. [26]
    Mr Lendvai indicated Matt Thompson to be his mate’s brother but that at the time he was the only person available to prepare a building report. Mr Lendvai indicated that Mr Thompson had received a call from Mr George appropo his report.
  3. [27]
    That report stated:

A The corrugated sheets in two areas have been installed and are not fixed off square to the house and the surrounding flashings.

  1. The entire roof area on the lower section is obvious that it is out of alignment. Where the corrugated sheet meets the longitudinal flashing on the front parapet wall, the turn down on the flashing is not parallel to the sheet. The flashing is half way up the left side of the valley on the lower end of the corrugated sheet where as on the higher end, the flashing is half way up the right side of the valley. This section of roof is directly outside two lounge room windows. The roof is at waist height in this area and is completely visible from inside the lounge room.
  1. The single corrugated sheet in front of one of the bedroom windows is also out of alignment. Similarly to the lower roof, this roof is at waist height and it is directly visible from inside the bedroom.

B On the lower roof, the previous installer has riveted flashings together directly outside the large window near the lounge room. There is no reason for there to be a join here and this piece of flashing could have been manufactured in one single piece to the required length.

C The scribing along every traverse flashing overlapping the corrugated roof sheets on both the lower and upper roof areas are well below what I would regard as an acceptable finish. When the installer has cut the profile into the turn down in the flashings, the tool has left heavy scratching on the majority of the flashings at the peak of the cut out which leaves the metal at risk of deterioration. The profile cut outs are not smooth and flowing as an experienced tradesperson should be able to scribe out. The profile cut outs have sharp and jagged edges where the installer has changed direction with the tool. The profile which has been cut out of the flashings is inconsistent and not uniform. It does not follow the profile of the corrugated sheets neatly and my opinion of this installation is that it is well below average.

D There is heavy scratching on the corrugated sheets in all areas where transverse flashing has been installed. There is evidence on the upper roof area where some of these scratches have been touched up but my opinion is that with the amount and length of the scratches are beyond what should have to be accepted by a customer.

E The owner pointed out the flashing on the lower level parapet wall. He explained he requested for the previous installer to have a return under the top fibreglass cap. This has not been done although there is a heavy and adequate bead of silicone along the top edge to stop any water penetration. The side of the flashing appears to not be sealed with silicone adequately. It does looks like there may be a flashing still installed from the original roof underneath. There are large scratches on this flashing on both the lateral and longitudinal surfaces which are very visible from the lounge room windows. There is no evidence of this flashing leaking at this stage but I believe this flashing could have been installed and left finished in a much neater fashion. I would recommend that the side of this flashing is checked and sealant reapplied.

F When pressure is applied on the corrugated roof sheets they seem to compress and this is not the norm. Upon inspection it appears that the batten screws used are the incorrect type. It appears that timber batten screws have been used across both levels to fix the corrugated sheets to the metal battens. These particular screws have a section approximately ¾ of an inch on the shank without thread. It is this part of the screw which is sitting through the penetration in the metal battens and not the thread section of the screw as it should be. This is allowing the sheets to compress when walked on or even potentially lifting in heavy winds. I don’t believe these screws are suitable for this particular installation and as a result the corrugated roofing sheets are not fixed correctly.

You can find on some installations that installers have screwed the steel or tek screws in too far, pulling the sheet down to hard and having the threadless section on the screw penetration the metal. This is not the case on this installation. The threadless section of these screws are designed for fixing capping rather than the corrugated sheets they have been used for.

There is evidence in multiple places on both the lower and upper roof areas where pressure dents from the underside of the corrugated sheets are sitting on the battens. I believe this is due to the corrugated sheets not being fixed correctly. It appears that when the roof sheets have been walked on during installation, using the incorrect screws has allowed excess pressure to be put on these particular points and the impressions from the battens has occurred.

G There are multiple places on both sections of the roof where surface rust has formed. The majority of it has been caused by the hot metal swarf either burning through the colorbond coating or the swarf itself has been left on the metal to rust, some of which has been covered under silicone.

H There is a flashing on the upper level of roof near the front pillar of the house which meets the gutter. The owner highlighted this as a point of concern and although it looks to be sealed, in my opinion the fold has been left with an unsatisfactory finish which is visible from the master bedroom windows.

I Upon request and having reviewed the roof in totality as to what should be accepted and classed as “minor damage” to the flashings and corrugated sheeting during installation;

 In my own opinion and from my experience, the frequency of both light and heavy scratches in the corrugated sheeting and flashings, combined with many impressions from both the underside and topside of the materials, also given that this damage is visible close up from frequently used inside living areas, as a builder and site supervisor I personally would not expect a customer to accept the amount of damage which has occurred on this roof installation.

J The owner has pointed out evidence of water penetration on the lounge room ceiling. This area is in the vicinity below where a box gutter is installed on the roof above. The owner believes he has siliconed the penetration up which seems to have stopped the leak from occurring again. The lounge ceiling has a water stain approximately 100mm in diameter and looks to be a recent stain from a single occurrence as the stain only has a single perimeter evident of a leak on one occasion only.

K The valleys in the corrugated sheets on the lower level have not been turned up. Normal practice is to put an upturn in the ends of the sheet on the high side to prevent water and condensation from dripping into the ceiling cavity, especially with a roof like this with such a small pitch. This would leave the roof susceptible to leaking in future with heavy rain.

  1. [28]
    Glasco Professional Services was a roof installer that initially provided a competitive quote for the re-roofing at 42 Brydon Street, Highgate Hill.
  2. [29]
    Craig Wilson confirmed at Mr Lendvai’s request that ‘there was no conversation around removing or moving any downpipes on any of the roofs …’. With respect to the downpipe in contention he stated:

There was no issue with the way it was currently installed at the time and if the flashings were done adequately and the roof sheets are installed correctly this downpipe would not be a cause for concern when carrying out the reroof installation. We did not discuss this particular downpipe at all as it did not pose any issues.

  1. [30]
    He continued:

Michael was going to remove the parapet mouldings on the upper level the morning of the installation should I had got the job and that Michael would also be replacing these mouldings with the new ones, gluing them to the metal capping after the re-roof was completed.

  1. [31]
    With respect to ‘issues raised regarding workmanship of re-roof’, Mr Wilson stated:
  • The sheets on the lower roof have been installed off square to the house and the parapet wall. This is directly outside the lounge windows and is very noticeable as the sheets are not parallel to the house or the parapet wall.
  • The screws used in the roof are the incorrect screws for this type of installation. They are timer batten screws and do not secure the sheets to the metal battens adequately. Because of this the roof sheets can be lifted up and away from the battens and also some of the screws can be undone easily by hand as there is no thread securing them to the metal battens.
  • The sheets on the lower roof do not have the valleys bent up and this has to be done to prevent water issues leaking into the roof cavity.
  • The poor quality of the scribing, the heavy scratches on the flashings and the roof sheets and how the cutting of the waves in the flashings are not smooth or consistent in following the wave of the sheets and they have jagged edges.
  • The flashing on the lower parapet wall has not been sealed correctly.
  • The scratches and dents on the roof sheets and flashings on both levels are excessive and should not have been accepted.
  • The join in the flashing on the lower level directly outside the window was not necessary. In this area I would have done it in a single piece just as the original flashing was installed given the length is only 3.7m.
  • Metal swarf has been silicone over and is now rusting on the flashings and roof sheets.
  • There is a water leak in the box gutter area on the upper level of roof.
  • The small sheet in front of the WIR window is not installed square to the house.
  • The flashing at the gutter next to the pillar is not bent over correctly.
  • The flashings should have been made wider so the screws are not installed right on the edge which could cause water issues.

Personally, with the amount of dents and excessive scratches in the roof sheets and with all the flashings needing to be replaced due to the scribing I believe it would be more economical to replace the roof rather than try to replace the damaged materials and fix up all those issues with the original re-roof. When you look at the lower sheets it needs the corrugated troughs to be bent up, all roofing screws need to be replaced with the correct type, all the flashings need to be replaced and done neatly, multiple roof sheets on both levels need to be replaced due to excessive dents/scratches and the box gutter needs rectifying as it currently leaks, I believe you would spend as much time in fixing these issues as you would just starting again. This would also cause issues around the warranty as the original work is not my own.

  1. [32]
    Mr Lendvai went on to assert that in early December 2014 he gave Brizroof the option of putting the water damage cost through its insurance or adjusting that cost against the final cost of the re-roof. However, Brizroof denied any responsibility for water damage claiming the damage was already there. Mr Lendvai said the roof needed to be redone from scratch; that no installer was willing to fix the work due to defects and damaged materials. He said, in the time since, he had a friend, a carpenter, assist him installing flashings that had been removed and fitting architectural parapet mouldings which were a single use item.
  2. [33]
    Mr Lendvai said Glasco’s quote to replace the roof was initially $5,623.30 a few hundred dollars more than Brizroof’s quote; that he was not claiming the difference between Brizroof’s quote and Glasco’s quote.
  3. [34]
    He said his counter-claim now consisted of:
    1. a)
      Refund of the deposit of $1,028.00 paid to Brizroof;
    2. b)
      Water damage of $3,690.50 made up of:
    1. i)
      Electrician $247.50;
    2. ii)
      Plasterer $1,760.00; and
    3. iii)
      Painter $1,683.00.
    1. c)
      Architectural parapet mouldings at $1,625.80.
  4. [35]
    He also sought the cost of the Ardent report at $374.00 and the Glasco report at $350.00.
  5. [36]
    Mr Lendvai produced a quote for electrical work for IN2Power at $247.50, a quote from Prompt Plastering at $1,760.00, a painting quote from Michael Hollett at $1,683.00, and a tax invoice from Hardcote Trading for $1,625.80 for architectural mouldings. Also produced was a tax invoice for Colorbond flashing from F&M Fabricators for $378.27, as well as a tax invoice from Clinton McDonald, carpenter, for $600.00 to install flashing.
  6. [37]
    With respect to architectural mouldings, Mr Lendvai said he was required to pay $1,625.80 ‘to cover the architectural mouldings I paid for which will need to be replaced again when I get the roof done by another installer’.


  1. [38]
    A contract for re-roofing at 42 Brydon Street, Highgate Hill was entered into. It was evidenced by the Brizroof’s quote for $5,142.50. Mr Lendvai paid a deposit of $1,028.00.
  2. [39]
    Re-roofing commenced on Tuesday 24 November 2015 and continued on the following two days, Wednesday and Thursday. On Thursday 26 November 2015 re-roofing work concluded with ‘flashings on the lower roof cut back and as the sheets were progressing and being placed in’. A storm event occurred on Sunday 29 November 2015 resulting in water ingress into the premises’ internal entry.
  3. [40]
    Mr Lendvai, that Sunday evening, identified the point of ingress as being in the area where water from a downpipe serving the upper roof level expelled water onto the lower roof. That because lower roof flashing were cut back that allowed water to back up underneath the flashings and into the lower roof ceiling cavity, the water then entering the internal entry through the light fitting. However, it appears to be more than that. Both the Ardent and Glasco reports clearly indicate that water ingress was caused by failure to turn up/bend up roof sheets which would have prevented water and condensation entering the ceiling cavity. Even Mr George considered bending up roof sheets was the priority barrier to stop water entry. Mr George seemed to suggest that on Thursday 26 November 2015, the ends of the roofing sheets were bent up but he was, it seems, not on site that day.
  4. [41]
    The Tribunal finds that water ingress into the internal entry was due to a combination of cutback flashings and failure to turn up/bend up roof sheets which allowed water to enter the internal entry causing damage to the ceiling area (including lights); that such damage could have been avoided had Brizroof exercised due care and skill in the manner in which roofing sheets were progressively being placed, and in particular the unprotected state in which the lower roof was left as of Thursday 26 November 2015.
  5. [42]
    An argument raised by Mr George that the downpipe was the cause of water ingress gains no traction at all. The Glasco report did not consider it a cause for concern, and Mr Wilson did not even discuss it with Mr Lendvai as it did not pose any issues in relation to the roofing. There was no supporting evidence before the Tribunal as to how the position of the downpipe could possibly have contributed to water ingress.
  6. [43]
    It was suggested that the internal entry ceiling water damage was as a result of prior water entry associated with a separate incident. Mr Lendvai agreed there was a prior water damage insurance claim, but that such had nothing to do with and was completely fixed prior to the 29 November 2015 storm event. The chronology is supported by the Larry Roberts Prompt Plastering statement, that plastering work undertaken prior to 29 November 2015 was in respect of a totally separate water damage issue, and also by estate agent person Samantha Peterfly who confirmed front entry water damage evident on 7 December 2015 as absent 10 days earlier.
  7. [44]
    On Monday 30 November 2015, despite being informed of the storm event and its consequences Mr George, amazingly, simply attended the premises and installed flashings on the lower roof and demanded further payment. Not only was there no acceptance of any responsibility for water damage, it was almost as if the intervening storm event had not even occurred.
  8. [45]
    The Tribunal accepts that Mr Lendvai attempted at least to negotiate immediately, suggesting water damage costs be deducted against the contract price, or that there be recourse to Brizroof’s insurance. Rather, on Friday 4 December 2015, parapet wall flashings and cappings were removed by Brizroof and tarps placed over the parapet walls. That is the day, as Mr George put it, that Brizroof pulled out of the job, apparently informing Mr Lendvai that he was not to engage another contractor to finish Brizroof’s work as it had to the right to do so. Mr George’s approach was bizarre: pulling out of the job; taking materials with him (flashings); and leaving the job unfinished, but it seems at the same time telling Mr Lendvai no other contractor was to do the roofing work at the premises. It also became apparent to Mr Lendvai that roofing as thus far installed was defective/substandard.
  9. [46]
    Ardent’s report in summary states:
    1. Sheeting installed not square/out of alignment;
    2. Unnecessary joins;
    3. Scribing unacceptable finish;
    4. Heavy scratching on flashings unacceptable;
    5. Sharp and jagged edges;
    6. Use of incorrect batten screws resulting in sheet compression and lifting;
    7. Visible pressure dents;
    8. Premature rust;
    9. None of the above could be classified as minor damage, but rather considered as unreasonable for a customer to accept the extent of damage at installation.
  10. [47]
    Crucially, the report stated:

The valleys in the corrugated sheets on the lower level have not been turned up. Normal practice is to put an upturn in the ends of the sheet on the high side to prevent water and condensation from dripping into the ceiling cavity, especially with a roof like this with such a small pitch. This would leave the roof susceptible to leaking in future with heavy rain.

  1. [48]
    Glasco’s report identified the following:
    1. Lower roof sheeting installed off-square;
    2. Use of incorrect batten screws resulting in roof sheets being able to be lifted up and away with some being easily undone;
    3. Sheets on the lower roof do not have the valleys bent up and this has to be done to prevent water issues leaking into the roof cavity;
    4. Poor quality scribing and unacceptable heavy scratching and dents;
    5. Cutting that has resulted in jagged edges;
    6. Unnecessary joins;
    7. Rusting on flashings and roof sheets;
    8. Flashings not wide enough and not bent over correctly.
  2. [49]
    Mr Wilson of Glasco concluded ‘you would spend as much time in fixing these issues as you would starting again. This would also cause issues around the warranty as the original work is not my own’.
  3. [50]
    There is no case here for Brizroof to complete the roofing where the overwhelming evidence is that the job will have to be restarted from scratch. The Tribunal finds that the roof work as thus far completed is not of acceptable quality and worthless to Mr Lendvai. He makes no claim for any additional costs he may incur by contracting with a licensed roofer to redo the roofing. He is entitled to a refund of the $1,028.00 paid as deposit to Brizroof. Nowhere in the evidence was there any admission of defective or substandard work, or any willingness to rectify substandard work that might give rise to a claim of lost opportunity to rectify. Rather, there was a persistence that because Mr George thought most of the work had been done, that payment in full was warranted. That flies in the face of the Ardent and Glasco reports.
  4. [51]
    Whilst the internal entry damage is evidenced by three quotes, electrician, plasterer and painter, all appear to be by third party on market commercially competitive operators, and to that extent pass muster as to the efficacy as of the cost involved in fixing the internal entry area. The Tribunal allows Mr Lendvai’s claim for electrician, plasterer and painter at $3,690.50.
  5. [52]
    Mr Lendvai claimed $1,625.80 for architectural mouldings. Such mouldings never formed any part of Brizroof’s quote. In the interim it appears Mr Lendvai has paid Mr McDonald, carpenter, to install parapet flashings (flashings and carpenter cost $978.27). Then he claims the $1,625.80 for the architectural mouldings. Parapet flashings and architectural mouldings would have had to have been installed in any event for Mr Lendvai to complete roofing works as envisaged by him. There is no reason why this has to be done twice, if it was done properly by Mr McDonald and Mr Lendvai in the first place. It seems Mr Lendvai is suggesting the costs of architectural mouldings and supply and installation of parapet flashings were temporary measures only, required to be redone ‘when I get the roof done by another installer’. That is not properly a part of Mr Lendvai’s claim against Brizroof, but rather part of the cost of the scope of works always envisaged by Mr Lendvai.
  6. [53]
    The Tribunal considers the cost of reports by Ardent and Glasco as reasonable, and allows same at $374.00 and $350.00 respectively.
  7. [54]
    The Tribunal dismisses Brizproof’s originating application and allows Mr Lendvai’s counter-application at all up at $5,442.50.

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Amor t/as Brizroof v Lendvai

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Amor t/as Brizroof v Lendvai

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCAT 328

  • Court:


  • Judge(s):

    Adjudicator Bertelsen

  • Date:

    14 Sep 2016

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.