Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2018
  4. Queensland Home Improvement Pty Ltd v Flanagan - [2018] QCAT 217

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

Queensland Home Improvement Pty Ltd v Flanagan[2018] QCAT 217

Queensland Home Improvement Pty Ltd v Flanagan[2018] QCAT 217

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland Home Improvement Pty Ltd v Flanagan and Levarre-Waters [2018] QCAT 217

PARTIES:

Queensland Home Improvements Pty Ltd

(applicant)

v

Emma Carline Flanagan and Leopold Richard Levarre-Waters

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL 313-16

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

8 June 2018

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member King-Scott

ORDERS:

  1. I order that Queensland Home Improvements Pty Ltd pay Leopold Levarre-Waters and Emma Flanagan the sum of $8,632.31 by 4.00 pm on 29 June.
  2. I direct the Respondents file any written submissions as to costs and serve a copy on the Applicant by 14 June 2018 and any response by the Applicant be filed and served on the Respondents by 21 June 2018.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING CONTRACT – BREACH – builder responsible for change in design – failure to carry out in accordance with approved plans – Practical Completion – conditions not complied with – refusal of certifier to approve completed deck – builder’s responsibility for compliance with the development approval – deck area less than approved plans – damages

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991

Sustainable Planning Act 2009

Kirsch v H P Brady Pty Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 36

Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Batchelor (1983) QdR 124

Rocci v Diploma Construction Pty Ltd [2004] WASC

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Leopold Lavarre-Waters on behalf of himself and Emma Flanagan

Respondent:

Brendan Long solicitor of of Celtic Legal, Solicitors

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    Leopold Levarre-Waters and Emma Flanagan (the Homeowners) engaged Queensland Home Improvements Pty Ltd (QHI) to construct a deck at the rear of their property at 75 Sibley Road Wynnum.
  2. [2]
    The house had been built on an old quarry site and the back of  the property was very steep.  Building a deck, at the rear, enabled the Homeowners to regain their backyard. 
  3. [3]
    The Homeowners had plans drawn up by a consulting engineer.  They then sought quotes.  Scott Challen, a Director of QHI, visited the site in about April 2015 and gave a quote on what it would cost to construct a deck.  The quote was accepted by the Homeowners and a formal contract was drawn up and signed by the parties on 29 July 2015.
  4. [4]
    The Contract provided that the Homeowners would pay QHI $1,250.00 inclusive of GST for building approval, permit lodgement and inspections by Statutory Authorities.
  5. [5]
    Construction was delayed because of difficulty in obtaining a building approval because of non-compliance issues with the small lot code. QHI had engaged The Certifier Pty Ltd (the Certifier) to obtain building approvals.  The Certifier lodged plans with the Brisbane City Council (BCC) which were rejected, initially, because they did not comply with s.261 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, and further detailed plans were required. The Homeowners were asked to pay a further $600 for revised plans. That was paid.
  6. [6]
    A site meeting was held with the parties, the Certifier and a representative of the BCC on 24 November 2015. The deck plans were modified by reducing the size of the deck to allow a 2m rear set back and 0.9m set back at the sides. It was at this meeting that screening was raised as a requirement. By an email dated 25 November 2015 the Homeowners sought an amended quote. Amended plans were drawn and provided to the Homeowners on 1 December 2015. The plans were obtained by QHI.
  7. [7]
    A Decision Notice, dated 6 January 2016, was provided by the BCC that approved the Homeowners’ development application in accordance with an attached development package which included amended plans. Those plans were amended in red to indicate, inter alia, a requirement of 1500 mm screening of the deck. I will refer to this as the Development Approval (DA). On 14 January 2016, the Homeowners sought clarification from QHI of the requirement of screening as opposed to handrail costs.
  8. [8]
    On 15 January 2016, the Homeowners sought further detail on a final price to change from handrails and wiring to the BCC approved screening and clarification as to whether the screening could be added to the top of the handrails, thereby retaining the stainless steel frame and wiring. The Homeowners were concerned about exceeding their budget. By a text message QHI advised that the Certifier had approved the screens being installed above the planned handrails. They were also advised that they would be credited for the reduction in the size of the deck.
  9. [9]
    By a subsequent email dated 19 January 2016, the Homeowners were credited $2,150 for the reduction in deck size. The cost of the screens was provided on per lineal metre basis depending upon whether hardwood or pine was used. QHI then advised that:

Certifier also advises that Cable handrails are fine and they will determine screen locations when they do the final inspection.

At this stage I believe it will only be the back boundary but won’t know for sure until final inspections carried out. I can explain this more clearly when we speak.

So we build the deck as per the approved plan setbacks, we install cable handrails and then screens are decided at a later date.

You could do this yourself or we can do them depending on material options you choose.

…

I suggest you have a think about what you would like to look at . We order screens and handrail when the deck frame is up.

  1. [10]
    The Homeowners were advised that the new contract price was $24,530.00 which they were advised included $2,000 for digging. Although, the contract was varied, it was not varied in accordance with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (the Act) in that no variation document came into existence. The variations were not signed off by the Homeowners.  However, the Homeowners do not rely upon QHI’s non-compliance with the Act.
  2. [11]
    Construction commenced and progressed through February and March 2016.
  3. [12]
    By email dated 15 March 2015, QHI advised;

Of course we also may need to install privacy screens yet depending on the Certifiers thoughts at inspection and these will be a further cost depending on the options you select.

I am keen to get them on site asap. I want to meet them on site so I can argue our case for “less is best”.

  1. [13]
    Several appointments were made for the Certifier to inspect the deck for a final inspection. The Final inspection was arranged for 30 March 2016. By email dated 28 March 2016 the Homeowners advised QHI that their bank is not willing to pay the final completion invoice until building approval was complete.  The Homeowners also disputed digging costs which will be referred to later in these reasons.
  2. [14]
    QHI reported, on 30 March 2016, that everything went well at the inspection with the exception of the privacy screens. The Certifier requested screening up to 1500 mm on all handrail edges. They advised the Form 21 could not be issued until proof was provided to the Certifier that the screens had been installed. They advised there were a number of options. They also advised that there was no need for a reinspection and that the Certifier would be happy with photos. By email dated 5 April 2016 QHI provided quotes for the additional screening, the email concludes:

These are built and installed only to provide compliance for the BA. They will be screw fixed to the back of the existing posts so you can easily remove them at a later date if you choose to do so. The Certifier may want to physically inspect the completed screens.

  1. [15]
    The Homeowners paid an additional $1,159.00 for screening. That screening comprised slats installed horizontally on top of the already installed handrail section. Again, that variation does not comply with the requirements of the Act.
  2. [16]
    However, on 15 April 2016 the Homeowners were advised by QHI that the photos provided could not be accepted as the screens had not been approved by the Certifier who required the screens to be from floor level to a height of 1.5m. The Certifier requested photographs of the screening after it had been rectified. QHI made further submissions to the Certifier by email dated 16 June 2016.
  3. [17]
    By email dated 6 June 2016 the Homeowners asked about progress. QHI responded the same day and blamed the Certifier for changing its mind  and advised that they would seek another certifier to approve the deck. They advised that they had done this and would arrange a another inspection date.
  4. [18]
    By an email dated 28 June 2016, QHI advised that they were doing everything to get the deck approved. They attached an email of submissions they had made to the Certifier.  In conclusion they said:

The Certifier has today agreed to sign off on the deck based on the points below provided the town planner who pointed out the discrepancy signs off on it.

Obviously I am getting that letter as soon as possible. However… the Certifier has told us different answers more than once and then reneged on a number of occasions.

I cannot guarantee this will get your deck signoff. All I can do is continue to try.  Please keep in mind that we have nothing to gain by dragging this out either.

Certifiers are independent 3rd parties, they are inconsistent, flippant and changeable.

  1. [19]
    The Homeowners evidence is that they did not receive an outcome from this correspondence.
  2. [20]
    On 14 July 2016, the Certifier contacted the Homeowners by telephone to clarify the position in respect of the screening on the deck.  They advised the Homeowners that they have been told that they, the Homeowners, had completed the screen themselves, that it was from floor to above handrail and that they owed QHI $5,000 and the Certifier was holding up payment.  Further, they advised that QHI had provided the Certifier with photographs of the deck screened from the floor to above the handrails and that the Homeowners had told QHI that the Certifier was not allowed on site. In fact, as the Homeowners advised, the screening had never been from floor level to above handrail and they had never objected to the Certifier from inspecting the property.  An inspection was carried out by the Certifier the next day.
  3. [21]
    On 25 July 2016 the Homeowners requested QHI to provide a completed Form 21 within 24 hours.  In response QHI advised that they:

… could not make the Certifier issue the Form 21.  Contrary to the advice they had given previously they want screens around the entire deck and are not budging on that point.  They even told us to install temporary stuff just for the photos.

If you are prepared to let us enter the site and install screens for the purpose of inspection then we can do that this week.

Failing that.

We have no other options at our disposal and encourage you to move forward with the QBCC. At least that way we can highlight the certifiers incompetence.

  1. [22]
    The Certifier, made aware of the allegations made by QHI wrote to QHI on 10 August 2016.  In that letter, it make clear, that an inspection in March 2016, that  the privacy screen erected on the deck did not comply. Further, photographs of privacy screening were later forwarded to their office, which Scott Challen of QHI claimed the owners had provided was not privacy screens of the property but of some other property.  The Homeowners denied providing those photographs. I note the photographs are Appendix 5 to the Certifiers statement of evidence and have been sent on QHI letterhead paper. Scott Challen, in evidence, admitted sending the photographs.
  2. [23]
    The Certifier pointed out the illegality of providing that false information.  Further, QHI’s statement that the owners did not wish the Certifier to visit their property was untrue.  Finally, they advised that no Final Certificate can/will be issued until the privacy screen is made compliant and inspection reveals same.
  3. [24]
    By email dated 25 July 2016 the Homeowners requested a completed Form 21 otherwise they indicated they would begin proceedings with the Early Dispute Resolution department of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission.  They, in fact, lodged a dispute with the Commission on 27 July 2016.  However, the Commission determined but it was a contractual matter that was outside it has jurisdiction.
  4. [25]
    On 17 August 2016 the Homeowners advised QHI by email that the Certifier had been in contact with them and confirmed that the screening for the deck was not compliant with DA.  They also confirmed that inspection of the property would be completed on 31 August 2016.  If the screens were completed and compliant and the deck built to specifications provided in the DA plans by that date then, the Homeowners were prepared to pay the invoice of $2,000 being the final stage payment.
  5. [26]
    QHI’s response, the same day, was to demand immediate payment, otherwise, they would place the debt in the hands of a debt collection agency.
  6. [27]
    Despite no Form 21 being issued and no Certificate of Practical Completion being tendered by QHI, it filed proceedings in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane on 2 September 2016, to recover the amount of $3,224.00 being an amount it alleged was due and owing under the agreement. That sum comprised the last stage payment of $2,000.00 and $1,224.00 for additional digging.
  7. [28]
    The Homeowners filed a Defence and Counterclaim on 23 September 2016.  In its counterclaim, they claimed construction costs of $8,200.00 to rectify the deck and make it compliant to enable the Form 21-Final Inspection Certificate to issue.  They claimed a further $3,900.00 to rectify the deck’s dimensions to comply with the plans.  They claimed a further $1,317.27 for the cost of handrails and cabling which were no longer necessary if the screening was put in place.
  8. [29]
    The proceedings were then transferred to the Tribunal on 17 October 2016 with an order that costs be costs in the course.
  9. [30]
    The BCC advised by email dated 4 December 2017 that the screening of the deck did not comply with the approved plans of the DA.

The Contract

  1. [31]
    The contract annexed to the statements of evidence  and dated 29 July 2015 was varied when the plans, being the plans prepared by the Consulting Engineers were not approved by the BCC.
  2. [32]
    It was a condition of the Contract that an allowance of $1,250.00 inclusive of GST for building approval, permit lodgement and inspections by Statutory Authorities.
  3. [33]
    Following the meeting on 24 November 2015 the Homeowners agreed to vary the contract when they agreed to the 2m and 0.9m setbacks. In the email of 25 November 2015 to QHI the Homeowners requested an amended “quote to suit the new dimensions as well as the legal screening requirements needed for the rear and east boundaries.” Later the same day, QHI agreed to get the drawings amended and lodged with the required parties. Those plans showed screening to 1m from the deck level. When they went to the BCC they were amended to a height of 1500mm.
  4. [34]
    Where the builder was responsible for the design, he impliedly accepts responsibility for it and, impliedly warrants suitability for the required purpose.[1] Here I am referring, not to the engineered drawings, initially presented to QHI by the Homeowners, but to the revised plans obtained by QHI.
  5. [35]
    Despite Mr Challen’s assertion, that the Homeowners did not want a survey of the property to establish the proper boundaries, the email correspondence between the parties would suggest the contrary.[2]
  6. [36]
    Again on 15 January 2016, the Homeowners sought a quote on the reduction in size of the deck and the cost of added screening. QHI responded on 19 January 2016 with a new contract price but not including the cost of screens, leaving that as an extra but providing estimates on a per lineal meterage basis depending upon whether pine or hard wood was used. They were still proceeding with the stainless steel cabling even though it was clear that it would not meet the legal requirements of the DA.
  7. [37]
    It was a condition of the contract and QHI warranted that it would carry out the works in an appropriate and skilful way with reasonable care and skill and in accordance with the plans and specifications attached to the contract. It further warranted that it would carry out the work in accordance with all relevant laws and legal requirements including, for example, the Building Act 1975.
  8. [38]
    Thomas J as he then was in Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Kelly (supra) said at 132:

An owner’s reliance on the skill and judgment of the builder is one of the most important factors in determining whether a builder is obliged to produce a proper result, or merely to do specific work. Cable (1956) Ltd. v. Hutcherson Bros. Pty. Ltd. (1969) 43 A.L.J.R. 320 at 323 IIB; McKone v. Johnson [1966] 2 N.S.W.R. 471; Hudson (op cit) pp. 278–281. Hudson states that in order that a term (such as a warranty that the work will answer the purpose for which it is intended,) be implied in a building contract, the owner “must be relying, to the knowledge of the contractor, upon the latter’s skill and judgment and not upon his own or those of his agent. This reliance need not, however, be exclusive, provided it is substantial”. (at pp. 280–281 ibid).

  1. [39]
    His Honour went on to say at 133:

I therefore hold that the builder was under a duty to provide the owner with a building that was structurally sound, even if he had to provide beams not specified in the drawings; and that the cost of making the adjustments called for by good building practice in order to overcome inadequacies in the plans are costs that should be borne by the builder.

  1. [40]
    QHI’s failure to complete the contract arises from a cavalier attitude to the statutory requirements of the DA which came into existence after the initial inspection in January 2016. QHI allege that they were misled by the Certifier that something other than full compliance with the DA would be tolerated and they forged ahead using balustrades and stainless steel wiring when, clearly, such balustrading was not going to comply.
  2. [41]
    Their motive for doing so is unclear, though I suspect the fact that they were committed to their design being the stainless steel wiring and timber posts and balustrade, which I will call the modified design. The costs of the material, probably, by that time had been incurred. The evidence would suggest that they thought or believed that they could convince the Certifier to approve the modified design and left the Homeowners with the belief that the modified design, with or without a screen fitted above, would be approved.
  3. [42]
    The Certifier had made clear in correspondence and through its representative, Mr Alan Greet, who gave evidence, that it did not condone QHI’s actions. It is not necessary for me to make a finding as to whether a representative of the Certifier’s misled QHI, at an earlier stage of the build. Their conduct, as appears in subsequent correspondence, suggests otherwise.
  4. [43]
    I have difficulty in accepting the accuracy of much of what Scott Challen has said either in correspondence or in evidence before the Tribunal. He is recorded in correspondence and has admitted, to some degree, when giving evidence that he attempted to mislead the Certifier. Firstly, by tendering false photographs of screening that were not photographs of the Homeowners deck. Secondly, he then told the Certifier, untruthfully, that they had provided the photographs and that the Homeowners did not want them to return to the property. Thirdly, he suggested temporary screening be erected for compliance purposes only, to satisfy the requirement of the Certifier. During this time he denigrated the Certifier for not complying with QHI’s wishes and he asserted that he had another certifier who would comply with his wishes and approve the deck without screening.
  5. [44]
    I do not accept that the Homeowners were complicit in this. I think they were frustrated by the additional time and money it was taking for the  project to be completed and were desirous only of having a deck that was compliant with the DA. If QHI represented to them that they would obtain an appropriate approval of their modified plan, then they had no reasons to doubt it and were entitled to rely upon the builder’s expertise. Any doubts they had about what was required to obtain a DA evaporated when they were made aware of QHI’s duplicitous behaviour.
  6. [45]
    In my opinion the contract as varied was to provide a deck that complied with the DA, which meant that it was to have screening, in accordance with that DA. QHI have failed to provide such a deck and are in breach of the Contract as varied as it has not carried out the work in accordance with the amended plans nor has it complied with the relevant laws and legal requirements.

Practical completion

  1. [46]
    “Practical Completion” is defined in the contract as meaning

the stage when the subject work has been completed in accordance with the contract and all relevant statutory requirements either:

  1. (i)
    without any omissions or defects; or
  1. (ii)
    apart from minor omissions or minor defects; and
  1. (iii)
    the structure is reasonably suitable for habitation

and the Contractor has given the Owner a Certificate of Practical Completion and has made reasonable efforts to have the Owner sign the Certificate of Practical Completion to acknowledge its contents.

  1. [47]
    The definition is similar in terms to that contained in Schedule 1B of the Act save for the issuing of the Certificate of Practical Completion.
  2. [48]
    The contract provided that the final payment was due immediately when the practical completion stage had been reached. 

If the owner claims the Practical Completion stage has been reached with minor omissions and minor defects the Contractor must give the Owner a document (the Certificate of Practical Completion) lapse: –

  1. (i)
    this the minor defects and minor omissions that the Contract and Owner agree exist; and
  1. (ii)
    states by when the Contract is to correct the listed defects and omissions; and
  1. (iii)
    lists the minor defects and omissions the only claims exist, but that are not agreed by the Contractor exist; and
  1. (iv)
    is signed by the Contractor.
  1. [49]
    Before the Tribunal, QHI submitted that its letter to the Homeowners dated 31 March 2016, was a Certificate of Practical Completion.  It is not. It does not comply with the requirements of the contract. The Certificate of Practical Completion is a condition precedent of QHI’s right to payment of the last stage payment.[3] It should have been given in a form that enabled the Homeowners to sign as either accepting or disputing that the contract had been performed.
  2. [50]
    The subject work has not reached a stage where the contract as varied had been performed and all relevant statutory requirements have been reached.

Deck smaller than planned

  1. [51]
    The Homeowners claim that the deck as built is smaller than the amended approved plans. QHI assert, rather disingenuously, that they have already allowed a credit for the reduced size of the deck, but, of course, that was as a result of the amended plans. After the plans had been amended, to meet the requirements of the DA with respect to the setbacks, QHI built a deck that is smaller than the amended plans. The total area measures 36.5 m2 whereas the planned deck was to be 39.6 m2 a difference of 3.1 m2. The Certifier has confirmed that discrepancy.
  2. [52]
    The value of the lost area has been assessed on a per square meterage basis, by Mr Brett Smith a licensed builder, as $2,112.31. QHI argues that it costs the same to build the smaller deck as it does the larger deck. In my opinion, the sum represents a reasonable sum for damages for failing to build the deck to the amended plans.
  3. [53]
    Mr Smith quantified the unnecessary wire hand railing costs at $2,889.27 He also assessed the costs of removing the wire hand rail and posts and non-compliant screening  and installation of compliant screening at $7,694.58. As I have found that the cost of compliant screening was not included in the contract. I allow the cost of installing the proper screening and the cost of dismantling and removing the wire hand rail, blustrade and posts. However, it would be unfair to include in the damages the initial cost of the stainless steel wire or the amount paid for the non-compliant screens of $1,159.00 on 14 April 2016 as it would amount to double dipping.
  4. [54]
    Of the claim of $9,550.00 for Deck Size Amendment and Compliance Costs, I do not allow the sum of $6,700.00 being, consultancy fees, as such is more appropriately costs.

Breach

  1. [55]
    The Homeowners claim damages for QHI’s breach. In doing so they must give credit for the amount of $3,224.00 outstanding as the final progress payment. The principles applicable are set out in the following decision of Heenan J in Rocci v Diploma Construction Pty Ltd[4]

The accepted rule for the measure of damages for breach of contract is that where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed - Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Ch 850 at 855 and Wenham v Ella (1972) 127 CLR 454 per Gibbs J at 471. Consequently, if under a building contract the owner decides to sue for damages he must give credit for what the work would have cost if properly completed or performed - Mertens v Home Freehold [1921] 2 KB 526. This can also be expressed by the rule that a party suing for damages for breach of contract may only recover for the net loss sustained, that is, the value of the benefit of the contract fully performed less the contracted price for securing such performance - Amann Aviation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1990) 174 CLR 64. Accordingly, an owner under a building contract needs to appreciate that an entire performance defence is an alternative to advancing a claim for damages and that if damages are claimed credit must be given for the sums due under the contract. The correct position is described in 'Hudsons: Building and Engineering Contracts' 11th ed (1995), Sweet and Maxwell in the following passage at 476:

Thus where the contract is entire, the owner may get the benefit of valuable works not entirely completed by the builder without having to pay for them, unless the circumstances are such as to justify a quasi-contractual remedy. So a builder who has not fully completed the work, through no fault of the owner, cannot overcome his difficulty by ignoring the contract and sue on a quantum meruit for the work he has done. However, the rigours of this rule are often considerably reduced because, in a large number of cases where there is not entire performance, the owner may decide to sue the builder for damages for breach of contract. If he does, he will, on general principles of damages for breach of contract, have to give credit for what he would have had to pay had the contract been properly performed. But in a case where the owner decides not to sue he may derive considerable advantage from the foregoing rules, which are, however, an essential and necessary sanction to discourage the deliberate breaking or abandonment of contracts, which would be absent if in such cases the builder was entitled to demand partial payment notwithstanding his own breach …

Digging

  1. [56]
    Part of QHI’s claim is for $1,224 for additional digging.  The claim was particularised in a spreadsheet entitled Provisional Costs and Variations for Flanigan 2 March 2016 set out dates, hours charged and whether the work was carried out by a labourer or tradesman.  The Homeowners allege that the spreadsheet is an accurate, contradictory and inflated.  They paid $2,000 towards digging as part of the original contract.  At the early stage of the build QHI dug holes for supporting posts for the deck.  This was on 15 and 16 September 2016.  Photographs of those holes are contained in the Homeowners’ statement of evidence. It is the Homeowners’ case that the test holes were only down to a depth of 300 to 400mm and were not suitable for footings. Leo Levarre -Waters, the male Homeowner, says he was there all day on when the second sets of holes were dug by a labourer and his nephew. He questions the accuracy of the number of hours claimed.
  2. [57]
    The cost of hole digging was always a matter of concern to the Homeowners, indeed, they inserted a handwritten addition to the terms of the contract to include the following:

Contract is also subject to satisfactory site preparation and hole digging to the owner. No materials will be ordered until site is clear and holes are dug by QHI.

  1. [58]
    I accept that there may have been some inaccuracy in the spreadsheet but I am unable to identify, with any degree of precision, how much was overcharged if any, I decline to make any reduction in the additional amount claimed.
  2. [59]
    In conclusion I allow the following as damages for breach of contract:

Compliance costs       $2,050.00

Reduction in deck size     $2,112.31

Install compliant screens     $7,694.00

Sub-total       $11,856.31

Less final progress payment and extra digging   $3,224.00

Total       $8,632.31

  1. [60]
    I order that Queensland Home Improvements Pty Ltd pay Leopold Levarre-Waters and Emma Flanagan the sum of $8,632.31 by 4.00 pm on 22 June 2018.
  2. [61]
    I invite the parties to file written submissions as to costs. Such submissions, if any, to be filed by the Respondents by 7 June 2018 and by the Applicant by 14 June 2018.

Footnotes

[1]Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Batchelor (1983) QdR 124 at 133

[2]See email Homeowners to QHI dated 15 January 2016 and QHI response 19 January 2016

[3]Kirsch v H P Brady Pty Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 36 at 54

[4][2004] WASC at [23]

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland Home Improvement Pty Ltd v Emma Carline Flanagan and Leopold Richard Levarre-Waters

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland Home Improvement Pty Ltd v Flanagan

  • MNC:

    [2018] QCAT 217

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member King-Scott

  • Date:

    08 Jun 2018

Appeal Status

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

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Amann Aviation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1990) 174 CLR 64
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 174 CLR 64
Cable (1956) Ltd. v Hutcherson Bros. Pty. Ltd. (1969) 43 ALJR 320
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1969) 43 ALJR 320
Kirsch v H.P. Brady Pty. Ltd. (1937) 58 CLR 36
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1937) 58 CLR 36
Cite 2 - (1937) 58 CLR 36
McKone v Johnson (1966) 2 N.S.W.R 471
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1966) 2 N.S.W.R 471
Mertens v Home Freehold (1921) 2 KB 526
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1921) 2 KB 526
Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Batchelor (1983) Qd R 124
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1983) Qd R 124
Cite 2 - (1983) Qd R 124
Cite 3 - (1983) Qd R 124
Cite 4 - (1983) Qd R 124
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Ch 850
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1848) 1 Ex Ch 850
Rocci v Diploma Construction Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 18
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] WASC 18
Cite 2 - [2004] WASC 18
Wenham v Ella (1972) 127 CLR 454
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1972) 127 CLR 454

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Queensland Home Improvements Pty Ltd v Flanagan [2019] QCATA 446 citations
1

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.