Clarkson v Kris Webb, Kalmik Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 225

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Clarkson v Kris Webb, Kalmik Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 225 PARTIES: AIMEE SHAREE CLARKSON (applicant) v KRIS WEBB, KALMIK PTY LTD (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: BDL180-24 MATTER TYPE: Building matters DELIVERED ON: 20 May 2026 HEARING DATE: 29 October 2025 HEARD AT: On the papers DECISION OF: Member Pearce ORDERS: The respondent is ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of $817.00. 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 Background [1] In 2020 the applicant was purchasing a property and engaged the respondent to provide a pre-purchase inspection of the property. The applicant requested the inspection report to assist in allowing an informed decision to be made on the condition of the property prior to purchase. [2] The respondent conducted an inspection on the property and provided the applicant with a pre-purchase inspection report. [3] The applicant now contends the respondent failed to identify several defects including substantial termite damage, loose ceiling lining and broken roof tiles not noted in the report. The applicant is claiming an amount of $21,925.00. Statutory Framework – building disputes [4] The relevant enabling Act is the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘QBCC Act’). -- 1 of 4 -- 2 [5] The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide building disputes;1 however, section 77(2) of the QBCC Act qualifies QCAT’s jurisdiction by first requiring an applicant to comply ‘with a process established by the commission to attempt to resolve the dispute’. The tribunal is satisfied that these obligations have been complied with. [6] A building dispute about a pre-purchase building inspection is a commercial building dispute. There is well established jurisprudence to this effect.2 A commercial building dispute may be a minor commercial building dispute if neither the claim nor any counterclaim exceeds $50,000 or a major commercial building dispute if the claim or counterclaim exceeds $50,000.3 Unlike proceedings for domestic building dispute and minor commercial building disputes, the jurisdiction for the tribunal to decide a major commercial building dispute requires the consent of the parties to the dispute before the proceedings commence.4 [7] The application commenced as a domestic building dispute, but when the issues were identified with the application, the applicant filed an application for a commercial building dispute seeking damages. The applicant’s claim is below the $50,000.00 threshold for jurisdiction. [8] As such I am satisfied with the jurisdictional issues that this is a minor commercial building dispute, and the tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear this matter. [9] Pursuant to s 77(3) of the QBCC Act, in deciding a building dispute the tribunal may award damages, interest, restitution, rectification or completion of defective or incomplete work, and costs. The issues to be determined [10] A home owner who enters into an agreement with a building contractor for the performance of building work and who sustains loss arising from the performance of the work in a defective manner may make a claim against the building contractor for breach of contract.5 Where the breach of contract is established, the homeowner is, as far as money can do so, entitled to be placed in the same situation with respect to damages as if the contract had been performed.6 [11] To establish a claim in negligence, the applicant must prove that the respondent owed her a duty of care, that the respondent breached the duty, and as a result of the breach, the applicant has suffered loss [12] The issues to be considered in terms of breach of contract or negligence are: (a) What was the agreement that existed between the applicant and the respondent? (b) Did the respondent breach contract and/or was he negligent? (c) If there was breach, what loss, if any, did the applicant suffer? 1 QBCC Act s 77. 2 Bebendorf v Uebergang [2018] QCAT 132; Brinin v Kasabel Investments Pty Ltd t/as Twin Cities Building & Pest Inspections [2021] QCAT 114. 3 QBCC Act s 2. 4 Ibid s 78. 5 Zhang v Todd [2019] QCAT 208, [19]. 6 Ibid citing Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 (d) If there was loss, was it caused by the respondent’s actions or breach of contract and what damages or costs, if any, should the tribunal award? [13] It is to be noted that the respondent in this matter was unlicensed at the time of the inspection. The applicant states his website indicated a QBCC licence number which was false. The respondent has failed to provide any information in response to the application filed. It is to be noted that as a result of the report of this matter to QBCC the respondent has been issued an infringement notice for being unlicensed to perform this work. [14] One requirement of the pre-purchase inspection is that the inspector is to enter into a signed inspection agreement with the customer. No signed inspection agreement has been provided. [15] It is clear however that the applicant has outlined she was referred to the respondent by her broker, she made contact and arranged the inspection understanding there would be a fee for this. The Tribunal accepts that a contract existed between the parties. [16] The applicant asserts there were numerous issues with the house which she was unaware of as they were not included in the inspection report and accordingly this must be a breach of contract or negligence. [17] The QBCC inspected the property in order to determine the issues raised in the inspection report. In their report QBCC have indicated that the report was carried out in accordance with the requirements of AS 4349.3 2010: Inspections of buildings Part 3: Timber pest inspections. In relation to a number of items that involved termite damage it is noted from the QBCC report that while termite damage was evident when they undertook the inspection this would not have been visible to the respondent as the sheeting had been removed to expose framing by the time the QBCC inspected the property. The report states in its conclusion: As a result of our investigations, QBCC concludes the pre-purchase inspection report provided by Kris Webb on behalf of Kalmik Pty Ltd is generally in accordance with the requirements of the Australian Standard 4349.3 The QBCC investigation has identified that Mr Webb is not licensed under the QBCC Act to carry out completed residential inspection and has not completed an engagement form with the owners. These matters have been referred to the QBCC compliance team for further investigation. [18] What needs to be determined is whether there was negligence on the part of the respondent causing loss to the applicant despite the report complying with Australian Standards. [19] Given the assessment of the QBCC it is very difficult to determine that there has been negligence on the part of the respondent. Whilst operating without the licence is against the QBCC regulatory framework it does not necessarily mean the inspection was not conducted to the required standards. The applicant states that the respondent’s report resulted in them not having full appreciation of the works required on the property which has incurred costs. In the alternative the applicant contends that the actions of the respondent resulted in the applicant losing the opportunity of being able to negotiate a reduced price for the purchase of the home. This inference cannot however be drawn as it is possible that had a licensed inspector carried out the -- 3 of 4 -- 4 inspection and provided a report complying with Australian Standards a similar result may have eventuated. [20] The fact of the respondent not being licenced is a regulatory matter. Operating without the required licence may be considered to be a breach of the contract between the parties and as such the respondent may not be entitled to receive payment for the inspection fee. [21] The applicant has asserted that the respondent acted in a misleading and deceptive way encouraging the applicant to believe there was a valid licence to carry out the work. A claim for misleading or deceptive conduct by the respondent under Australian Consumer Law is outside the jurisdiction for the Tribunal. [22] As such the respondent is to pay to the applicant the amounts of $450.00 being the inspection report fee and $367.00 being the filing fee for this application. Orders [23] The respondent is ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of $817.00. -- 4 of 4 --