QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND 
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Roze & Anor v Boyd [2023] QCAT 230	
PARTIES:	Aiden Jonathan roze
dhay ahmed ali	

(applicant)	

	v	
	benjamine boyd	

Respondent	

APPLICATION NO/S:	BDL 109-22, MCD906-21	
MATTER TYPE:	Building matters
Minor Civil Dispute	
DELIVERED ON:	7 June 2023	
HEARING DATE:	7 June 2023	
HEARD AT:	Brisbane	
DECISION OF:	Member Favell	
ORDERS:	The respondent pay to the Applicant $6203 by 21 June 2023.
	
CATCHWORDS:	BUILDING CONTRACT – whether work done – whether work defective – where work required rectification – where work was not completed – where replacement work not of the same specification
Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld)	
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)	

REASONS FOR DECISION
[1]	The applicant entered into a contract with the respondent to build a staircase, which was meant to be childproof. 
[2]	The contract consisted of quotation given by the respondent to construct the stairs for $5,200.
[3]	Contact was made between the parties via an app which allowed interested parties to be in contact with trades persons. 
[4]	The applicant accepted the quote, and after some delay, the respondent commenced work.
[5]	The applicant paid an initial deposit of $2,200 and then a further payment of $1,500, even though the respondent was not at that time, entitled to further payment.
[6]	The respondent was meant to commence work by 17 June 2001 but was delayed.
[7]	Work was commenced, but on 23 June 2021, the respondent via text indicated he would not be completing the job, nor returning to the site. 
[8]	The applicant regarded that conduct as a repudiation of the contract.
[9]	The applicant sourced quotes from two independent contractors to complete the work. 
[10]	At that stage, the applicant was advised that the work done by the respondent was defective and it needed to be remedied.
[11]	The applicant was advised that the respondent had cause unnecessary damage and structural damage.
[12]	The applicant sought to make a claim against the QBCC warranty fund, but the claim was denied because the respondent was not now a licensed builder, the work was not insurable work and the contract was not a fixed price residential contract.
[13]	The applicant accepted a quote from Rochele Painting in the sum of $2,145 to fix the structural damage caused by the respondent and repaint.
[14]	The applicant also engaged AC stainless balustrading to construct and install a childproof set of stairs.
[15]	Those stairs were a completely different design to the flawed design commenced by the respondent.
[16]	 The cost of the replacement stairs was $6,512.
[17]	In my view because the replacement stairs were of a completely different design and of different materials the applicant is not in entitled to the cost of those replacement stairs.
[18]	The applicant claimed the cost of rectifying the respondents work and the cost of the replacement stairs, less the respondent’s quote.
[19]	In my view, the applicant is entitled to the money paid to the respondent, namely, $3,700 and the cost of rectifying the home because of the structural damage done by the respondent.
[20]	That rectification cost was $2,145.
[21]	The applicant also claims the following cost of this application in the sum of $358.
[22]	In this matter, the applicant has complied with all of the orders made by the tribunal.
[23]	The respondent has not complied with all of the orders made by the tribunal and did not file a response.
[24]	The respondent refused to partake in any attempt to settle this matter.
[25]	In my view of the applicant should be entitled to the filing cost.
[26]	The applicant complied with section 77(2) of the QBCC Act before filing the application.
[27]	I order the respondent pay the applicant, the money paid by the applicant to him, namely, $3,700, plus the rectification costs of $2,145 plus the filing fee of $358, a total of $6,203.