Bellamy Plumbing t/as Wastewater Systems QLDv O’Brien

CITATION:

Bellamy Plumbing t/as Wastewater Systems QLDv O’Brien [2012] QCAT 640

PARTIES:	Bellamy Plumbing t/as Wastewater Systems QLD (Applicant)
v
Eric O’Brien (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCD58/13

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

11 November 2013

HEARD AT:

Holland Park

DECISION OF:

Member Favell

DELIVERED ON:

20 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor Civil Dispute – whether debt – whether agreement for additional work

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Dereck Bellamy

RESPONDENT:

No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

Bellamy Plumping Pty Ltd seeks an order for the payment of $617.10 as an amount owing for ‘extra plumbing pipe work to treatment system and labour and extra excavation for ramp and clearing of trees’. That claim is reflected in a tax invoice dated 17 October 2012.
It also claims the filing fee of $55 and the service fee of $50 along with interest at the rate of ten percent for 181 days.
The respondent Eric O’Brien did not appear at the hearing but in a response filed with the Tribunal he says that additional charges or a variation to the contract were never discussed, agreed or documented. He said that the job was quoted by Bellamy Plumbing and their competitors prior to the commencement of the job. Bellamy Plumbing’s proposal was accepted based on a fixed price and their advice on what work needed to be done in addition to the location and type of system required.
In the response, the respondent said that he paid the second half final instalment) of the quoted price upon receipt of the final invoice approximately one day after the completion of the job.
Although the respondent did not appear at the hearing, upon being satisfied that Mr O’Brien had the notice of hearing sent to him on 18 September 2013 at the address provided as his contact address I determine to proceed in his absence.
Two tax invoices dated 3 September 2012 have been produced. One has an amount due of $12,614 and the second has an amount due of $6,307 it acknowledging that a payment of $6.307 was paid.
In those tax invoices there is a description of what the charge is for.
It is as follows:
Wastewater Systems QLD will supply and install to the above address earth-safe pollen twin-advanced secondary system, surface irrigation area x 24 fixed wobblers and servicing for the first year
Price includes full installation and labour, bedding material, water to fill system, excavation x 8 hours, surface irrigation area.
Price does not include removal and spreading of soil off site, excavation of rock, landscaping and subsidence and electrical connection.
50 percent deposit to be paid on acceptance, full amount must be paid on or before day of delivery
Pump out and decommissioning of sceptic tank and connection to treatment system
The invoice which is being relied on to make this claim has as the description
Extra plumbing pipe work to treatment system and labour $330
Extra excavation for ramp and clearing of trees $231.
No evidence of any variation has been produced nor is there any evidence of any agreement for the charges in the tax invoice dated 17 October 2012.
In my view, the parties contracted to have the work described in paragraph 8 above done. It was a price for all of the work required for full installation and labour, bedding material, water to fill system, excavation and surface irrigation area. The work charged in the invoice of 17 October 2012 does not correspond to the excluded items.
In my view the respondent is entitled to rely on the accepted description and in the absence of any agreement for a change to that description the respondent’s claim fails. In my view the work it now claims for was included in the original accepted scope of work.
The application is dismissed.

The matter before the court was an application by Bellamy Plumbing trading as Wastewater Systems QLD against O'Brien. The applicant sought an order for payment of a debt, claiming that the respondent owed money for additional work performed under a contract for the installation of a wastewater system. The respondent denied the claim, arguing that the additional work was not agreed upon and that the applicant had not provided adequate documentation to substantiate the charges. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether there was a valid agreement for the additional work that the respondent had allegedly agreed to pay for. The court had to determine whether the additional work fell within the scope of the original contract and whether there was evidence of a subsequent agreement for the extra work. The court also needed to assess the credibility of the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the applicant had discharged the onus of proving the debt.

In examining the evidence, the court found that the applicant had failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the additional work was agreed upon by both parties. The court highlighted that the applicant's documentation was insufficient to establish the exact nature and extent of the work performed, and that there was no explicit agreement or variation to the original contract. The court noted that while there was some evidence of communication between the parties, it was not sufficient to establish a binding agreement for the additional work. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's claim, finding that the applicant had not met the burden of proof required to establish the existence of a valid debt.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed. The respondent was not required to pay the amount claimed by the applicant, and no costs order was made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established