Ruhle v Lormist Pty Ltd [2022] QCAT 100

Andrew Orford  |  Alexandria Hammerton |  Eva Squire

Key takeout

Parties must meet all relevant requirements of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act) before bringing a building dispute before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). 

These requirements include the appropriate classification of the building work to which the dispute relates, as well as compliance with the dispute resolution process required by the QBCC Act.  However, a party will not be required to comply with the dispute resolution process each time it amends the scope of its claim.

Facts

Stephen and Cynthia Ruhle (applicants) entered into an agreement with Lormist Pty Ltd (builder) for the construction of an extension to an existing shed and the laying of a concrete slab on the applicants’ property.  The shed was used to house the applicants’ vehicles including a truck, motor vehicles, motor bikes, a caravan and boats.

After completion, the applicants say that they identified cracking in the slab and commenced proceedings in QCAT to recover the cost of rectifying the defective work.  In addition to the defects in the slab the applicants discovered structural defects in the shed itself and sought to amend their claim to include the additional defective work in the shed. The builder opposed this application.

The builder argued that the shed was a farm building and not a home, therefore the dispute was not a ‘domestic building dispute’ within the meaning of the QBCC Act. The builder also argued that the applicants had not complied with the dispute resolution procedure required by s 72(2) of the QBCC Act.

Decision

QCAT found that the shed did not fall within the definition of a ‘farm building’ in the QBCC Act.  The evidence included communications between the applicants and the QBCC in which the applicants said that they were not farmers and that their property was not used for agricultural or pastoral purposes but for the storage of personal equipment.  The construction of the shed constituted the ‘improvement’ of a home and fell within the jurisdiction of QCAT, as specified by the QBCC Act. 

The applicants had complied with the requirements of s 72(2) by attempting to resolve the dispute prior to making an application. The builder argued that these dispute resolution attempts only related to the alleged defects in the concrete slab, and not the structural defects to the shed itself, alleged in the subsequently amended claim.

This submission was rejected on the basis that it would impose constraints on the conduct of building disputes. Section 72(2) does not require compliance with the dispute resolution process every time there is a material change in the particulars and scope of a building dispute.