Aspect Homes Qld Pty Ltd v McBride [2026] QCAT 18

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Aspect Homes Qld Pty Ltd v McBride [2026] QCAT 18 PARTIES: ASPECT HOMES QLD PTY LTD (applicant) v GAIL PATRICIA MCBRIDE (respondent) APPLICATION NO: BDL431-24 MATTER TYPE: Building matters DELIVERED ON: 9 January 2026 HEARING DATE: 25 November 2025 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Scott-Mackenzie ORDERS: 1. The application by Gail Patricia McBride filed 25 November 2025 to stay a proceeding on the grounds she has not received sufficient documentation and requires time to discuss the proceeding with a lawyer is dismissed. 2. Gail Patricia McBride pay to Aspect Homes Qld Pty Ltd $108,003.87, calculated as follows: Claim $ 61,680.00 Interest $ 19,568.61 Costs $ 26,755.26 $108,003.87 3. The counterclaim by Gail Patricia McBride is dismissed. 4. The reasons for this decision are reserved. 5. This decision be served on the parties by email. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – proceeding commenced in the Magistrates Court of Queensland – respondent filed a notice of intention to defend and defence and counterclaim but did not otherwise actively participate in the proceeding – respondent did not comply with directions – on the day before or the day of the hearing respondent applied for a stay of the proceeding – stay -- 1 of 14 -- 2 refused – minor defects pleaded by the respondent – complaint items referred to in a report became the complaint items rejected by Queensland Building and Construction Commission – claim opportunistic – claim allowed with interest and legal costs Arcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2013] QCAT 573 Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd [2011] QCATA 142 Olindaridge Pty Ltd & Wagner v Tracey [2015] QCATA 175 Tamawood Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111 Thomas v Nielson [2012] QCAT 225 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Mr Bathersby of Bathersby Legal Respondent: No appearance REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction [1] On 20 June 2023 the applicant (‘Aspect Homes’) commenced a proceeding in the Magistrates Court of Queensland against the respondent (‘Ms McBride’). Aspect Homes filed a claim and statement of claim in the proceeding, Ms McBride filed a notice of intention to defend and defence and counterclaim, and Aspect Homes filed a reply and answer to the defence and counterclaim. [2] On 30 October 2024 the Magistrates Court, under sections 6 and 53 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), transferred the proceeding to the Tribunal. [3] I will return to the documents filed in the Magistrates Court later in these reasons for decision. [4] On 25 November 2025 I ordered as follows: 1. The application by Ms McBride filed 25 November 2025 to stay a proceeding on the grounds she has not received sufficient documentation and requires time to discuss the proceeding with a lawyer is dismissed. 2. Ms McBride pay to Aspect Homes $108,004.20, calculated as follows: Claim $ 61,680.00 Interest $ 19,568.61 Costs $ 26,755.59 $108,004.20 3. The reasons for this decision are reserved. 4. This decision be served on the parties by email. -- 2 of 14 -- 3 [5] These are my reasons for the decision. Application to stay a decision [6] The proceeding was fixed for hearing on 25 November 2025. Mr Bathersby of Bathersby Legal appeared on behalf of Aspect Homes. There was no appearance by or on behalf of Ms McBride. [7] About 10 minutes after the commencement of the hearing, I was provided with an application to stay a decision. It is dated 24 November 2025. [8] The reasons for the application are couched in the following terms: I respectfully request that the hearing scheduled for 25/11/25 be adjourned for 2 weeks as I haven’t received sufficient documentation or directions to properly prepare and I require additional time to discuss the matter with my lawyer. [9] On 24 November 2025, at 1:03pm, Ms McBride sent to the Registrar an email. It is not known whether the email was sent before or after the application. [10] The email, omitting formal parts, reads as follows: I respectfully request an extension of time in relation to the hearing scheduled for 25 November 2025 in the matter of Case No. BDL431-23/24. On 27 October 2025, I advised QCAT by email that I had no clear understanding of the proceedings until I contacted both QBCC and QCAT directly. I also referred to earlier correspondence between 23-25 September 2025. Despite my efforts, I have not received sufficient information or directions to properly prepare for the hearing tomorrow. On 24 November 2025, I again contacted QCAT to ask what the current directions/orders are, as I have not been provided with documentation that would assist me in presenting my case. I require additional time to consult with my lawyer regarding this matter. I am a disability pensioner, unable to drive, and live 1.5 hours away from my lawyer. I must rely on public transport, which makes attending appointments and the hearing difficult. The cost of legal representation is already a significant burden, and I struggle to meet these expenses. I therefore need to wait for available appointments and further documentation from QCAT before my legal team can properly advise me. In addition, I am experiencing increased harassment and bullying from the applicant, which has added to the difficulty of preparing for this matter. I am doing my best to comply with the Tribunal's processes, but without the necessary information and time, I cannot fairly present my case. I respectfully request that the Tribunal grant an extension of time to allow me to consult with my lawyer, obtain the required documentation, and prepare my evidence. This extension is necessary to ensure procedural fairness. Thank you for your understanding and consideration. [11] Mr Bathersby addressed the application and email. For the reasons outlined during the hearing, the application by Ms McBride for a stay of the decision was dismissed. [12] The documents and directions not received by Ms McBride are not identified in the application. I was satisfied the documents filed in the Magistrates Court and the affidavits of Mr Bathersby sworn 1 April 2025 and Mr Channells sworn 20 June 2025 and the directions given by the Tribunal on 8 January 2025, 26 February 2025, 17 April 2025, 23 July 2025, 25 September 2025 and 12 November 2025 were given to -- 3 of 14 -- 4 Ms McBride. [13] The proceeding was commenced in the Magistrates Court on 20 June 2023. It was fixed for hearing two years and five months later. In my opinion, Ms McBride had more than sufficient time to obtain legal advice and assistance. [14] Ms McBride failed to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal in the proceeding. On 8 January 2025 the proceeding was listed for a compulsory conference on 26 February 2025. Ms McBride did not attend the conference. She was directed to file in the Tribunal an explanation for not attending but did not do so. The Tribunal further directed that if Ms McBride did not file the explanation by the date specified, the proceeding be determined on the material filed and any further material from Aspect Homes in the absence of Ms McBride and without further reference or notice to her. [15] On 17 April 2025 the Tribunal directed that Aspect Homes and Ms McBride file and serve statements of evidence and a Scott schedule. It further directed that a party will not be allowed to present any evidence at the hearing of the proceeding not contained in the statements without justifying the need for such additional evidence to the Tribunal. [16] Ms McBride did not comply with the directions. [17] On 23 July 2025 the Tribunal extended the time for Ms McBride filing and serving statements of evidence and a Scott schedule. It further directed that if Ms McBride did not comply with the directions she will not be permitted to file and rely on any further statements of evidence unless the Tribunal otherwise orders. [18] Ms McBride did not comply with the directions. [19] Ms McBride last actively participated in the proceeding when she filed a notice of intention to defend and defence and counterclaim on 27 July 2023. The only documents filed and served in the proceeding are the affidavits of Mr Bathersby and Mr Channells mentioned, and the directions given by the Tribunal. [20] On 3 October 2025, more than seven weeks prior to the date of the hearing, Aspect Homes and Ms McBride were given notice the proceeding had been fixed for hearing on 25 November 2025. Yet nothing was done to obtain documents or legal advice and assistance until the day before the date of the hearing. Contract [21] The contract is a Residential Building Contract – Level 2 (‘contract’). The contract price is $335,000.00.1 The date for practical completion is, ‘[t]he date that is the last Day of the Construction Period from the Date for Commencement’.2 [22] Item 19 and part D of the appendix to the schedule provide for payment of progress claims in accordance with method A of clause 25.1 of the general conditions (‘general conditions’). [23] Clause 25.6 of the general conditions provides that if a notice in accordance with clause 25.5 is not given, the total amount of a progress claim must be paid without any 1 Schedule (‘schedule’) item 3. 2 Schedule item 12. -- 4 of 14 -- 5 deduction. Item 21 of the schedule and clause 25.7 of the general conditions provides for the payment of interest on outstanding payments at the rate of 10% per annum. [24] Clause 25.7 of the general conditions also provides for the payment of any debt collection costs, including any legal costs on a full indemnity basis, associated with recovering, or the attempted recovery of, an outstanding amount. Defects document [25] Aspect Homes prepared a defects document. It was shown to Ms McBride but not signed by her. She provided Aspect Homes with a copy of the Pre-Purchase Standard Property Report referred to later in these reasons for decision. [26] The defects document lists the following minor defects and omissions: Item Description Date for rectification 1. Acid wash to exterior bricks 2. Supply two x gas bottles ✓ 3. Silicone in dining room needs tidying ✓ 4. Patch mark on garage cavity sider frame ✓ 5. Repair damage to kitchen bulkhead 6. Clean trim around niches in bathroom and ensuite 7. Seal gap on kitchen splashbacks, right hand side ✓ 8. Remove paint drips on tiles near alfresco door ✓ 9. Sticky residue on kitchen bench ✓ 10. Various paint touch ups as discussed ✓ [27] The ‘ticks’ in the right hand column indicate the items were rectified. The items without a tick were not rectified. Pre-Purchase Standard Property Report [28] The Pre-Purchase Standard Property Report, prepared by Rapid Building Inspections, is exhibit DCC 24 to Mr Channells’ first affidavit. The inspection was carried out on 21 September 2022. [29] The Report identifies several internal and external defects. Queensland Building and Construction Commission [30] Ms McBride complained to Queensland Building and Construction Commission about 11 items. The Commission carried out an initial inspection on 21 February 2023. -- 5 of 14 -- 6 Its report on the outcome of the inspection is dated 23 March 2023. -- 6 of 14 -- 7 [31] The Commission estimates the cost to rectify the complaint items is about $2,189.00, calculated as follows: Complaint item Estimated cost of rectification (including 15% margin and 10% GST) 1 and 9 $570.00 2 – 5 $810.00 7 $303.00 10 $506.00 $2,189.00 [32] The complaint items, description of the complaints items and outcome are outlined in the table below: Complaint item Description Outcome 1. Damage to the gutters on house See complaint item 9 2. Main vanity is cracked off the wall Niche is damaged and not sealed Different types and colours of grout used in tile work Generally not sealed correctly and extremely messy It would not be reasonable to direct the contractor in this instance to rectify the complaint item 3. Cracked tiles Uneven sealed walls and tiles Cracked ceiling Not sealed properly Wrong measurement Paint mess It would not be reasonable to direct the contractor in this instance to rectify the complaint item 4. Niche not sealed Niche is damaged Whole tile area not sealed properly No shower door Damage to the wall Damage to the windows It would not be reasonable to direct the contractor in this instance to rectify the complaint item 5. Whole tiles flooring is not sealed properly and not properly installed Damaged walls and door frames were installed incorrectly It would not be reasonable to direct the contractor in this instance to rectify the complaint item -- 7 of 14 -- 8 6. Tile areas are not sealed Damage to doors and windows There was insufficient evidence to reveal any obvious defective construction practices Aspect Homes Pty Ltd at the time of inspection 7. Cupboards are not sealed properly Cabinets need paint Doors and trim need attention No rangehood installed correctly Damage to roof of cabinets Messy seals on sink It would not be reasonable to direct the contractor in this instance to rectify the complaint item 8. Needs sealing and cabinets need replacing because of no power connection available There was insufficient evidence to reveal any obvious defective construction practices by Aspect Homes Pty Ltd at the time of inspection 9. Damage gutters at the back of property when they were installed 5 months ago Roof damage due to incorrect installation No installation in garage Loose gutters and roof iron It would not be reasonable to direct the contractor in this instance to rectify the complaint item 10. Cracked brickwork Uneven brickwork Damage to brickwork Messy Rubbish left behind Uneven ground It would not be reasonable to direct the contractor in this instance to rectify the complaint item 11. The back windows were smashed last Wednesday I tried contacting the builder but they didn’t answer I need access to the house for my insurance company to fix the damage however the weather is bad so now carpet will be damaged There was insufficient evidence to reveal any obvious defective construction practices by Aspect Homes Pty Ltd at the time of inspection On 29 March 2023 the Commission gave to the parties a decision. It declined to direct Aspect Homes to rectify any of the complaint items. Claim [33] Aspect Homes claims against Ms McBride $61,680.00 under the contract. [34] Additionally, it claims interest, alternatively under section 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), until payment or judgment and costs. Statement of claim [35] Aspect Homes pleads that on 22 October 2021 the parties entered a contract in writing under which Aspect Homes agreed to construct a low set brick veneer home at 13 Cox -- 8 of 14 -- 9 Road, South Side (‘home’). [36] The statement of claim identifies the documents relied on by Aspect Homes, the schedule to the contract and general conditions. [37] Between 21 February 2022 and 8 September 2022 Aspect Homes constructed the home. The parties agreed to 19 variations of the work. [38] Aspect Homes gave to Ms McBride invoices for the work. The final invoice, number 1055 dated 19 September 2022 for $61,680.00, was not paid by Ms McBride. Defence and counterclaim [39] Ms McBride, in her defence, denies the allegations pleaded by Aspect Homes. She alleges she did not issue any documentation or sign off on any stages of the works and never agreed to any variations of the contract. [40] In her counterclaim, Ms McBride asserts Aspect Homes has not produced several items in the contract. She continues: (a) money owing is not the right amount of concrete and all other materials stated in the contract; (b) costs to rectify damage to the property incurred by the incorrect positioning of the home; (c) costs to rectify damage to the property originally stated in the reports due to unfinished concreting and damage caused by water. Also, the roof will need to be replaced due to rust in holes from incorrect installation as well as costs to rectify unlevel wall/roof; (d) money owed by Aspect Homes for liquidated damages stated in the contract; (e) accommodation and storage costs; and (f) costs. [41] The defence and counterclaim are dated 27 July 2023. It was the last active involvement by Ms McBride in the proceeding until immediately before the hearing. Reply and answer to counterclaim [42] Aspect Homes, to the extent it was able, replied to the defence and counterclaim. It does not admit Ms McBride has made numerous enquiries about the property and is still uncertain of the truth or otherwise and is unable to admit it is due to outstanding materials and damage to be rectified by Aspect Homes. [43] It further denies there is an outstanding amount of materials and there is no damage to be rectified by it. [44] Other allegations are said to be vague and embarrassing and Aspect Homes cannot ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations without better particulars being provided. [45] In its answer, Aspect Homes denies it has not produced several items in the contract. It further denies there is money owed by Aspect Homes to Ms McBride. [46] Ms McBride, Aspect Homes pleads, has not made a claim for liquidated damages under the contract. She lived on the site and was not homeless. -- 9 of 14 -- 10 Aspect Homes’ statements of evidence [47] Aspect Homes filed two affidavits in the proceeding in the Magistrates Court, an affidavit by Mr Sutherland sworn 6 August 2024 and an affidavit by the Mr Channells sworn 21 August 2024. The affidavits were filed in support of an application for summary judgment. [48] It filed a further two affidavits in the Tribunal, an affidavit by Mr Bathersby sworn 1 April 2025 and an affidavit by Mr Channells sworn 20 June 2025. Mr Sutherland’s affidavit [49] Mr Sutherland swears he is a qualified electrician and the owner of Gold Coast Electrical & Communications (Qld) Pty Ltd as trustee for The Sully’s Trust No. 2. He has been working for Aspect Homes for approximately eight years. [50] He discussed with Ms McBride the electrical work in the home. After completing the work, he sent an email to Aspect Homes informing it the work had been completed and send an invoice for $4,529.48. Mr Channells’ first affidavit [51] Mr Channells is a director of Aspect Homes. On 22 October 2021 Aspect Homes and Ms McBride entered a contract for the construction of the home. A copy of the certificate of title for the property and documents constituting the contract are exhibited to the affidavit. [52] Aspect Homes agreed to construct a low set brick veneer home on the property. On 18 February 2022 it was granted building approval for the work. [53] The construction commenced on 21 February 2022 and was completed on 8 September 2022. The parties agreed to 19 variations to the contract. [54] Aspect Homes gave to Ms McBride several progress claims. The final claim, invoice number 1055 dated 19 September 2022 for $61,680.00, was not paid by Ms McBride. [55] Mr Channells then addresses the variations. The background is spelt out in detail, together with Ms McBride’s authority to proceed. [56] Practical completion was reached on 8 September 2022. Mr Channells prepared a defects document. Subsequently, minor defects were attended to by Aspect Homes. On 19 September 2022 Aspect Homes sent to Ms McBride the invoice for $61,680.00. [57] On 23 September 2022 a final inspection certificate (form 21) was prepared and given to Ms McBride. [58] The parties met and correspondence past between them. Lawyers were retained by each of the parties and Aspect Homes gave to Ms McBride a notice of intention to terminate the contract. [59] Ms McBride retained Rapid Building Inspections to provide a Pre-Purchase Standard Property Report. The purpose of the report was to provide advice to Ms McBride on the condition of the building and site at the time of the inspection. Aspect Homes’ lawyers responded to the report. [60] Ms McBride reported to Queensland Building and Construction Commission 11 complaint items. It inspected the home on 21 February 2023. The Commission, on 29 March 2023, informed the parties it did not intend directing Aspect Homes to rectify -- 10 of 14 -- 11 any of the complaint items. [61] Mr Channells observed Ms McBride was living in the home in late September 2023. Mr Battersby’s affidavit [62] Mr Battersby, on 14 March 2025, sent to Ms McBride a copy of an email from the Tribunal dated 28 February 2025 and a copy of the directions given by the Tribunal on 26 February 2025. He confirmed that the letter had been delivered on 10 March 2025. Mr Channells’ second affidavit [63] Mr Channells deposes to the proceeding in the Magistrates Court and the Tribunal. He and his wife attended the compulsory conference on 26 February 2025. Ms McBride did not attend. [64] Aspect Homes filed affidavits on 3 and 17 April 2025. Ms McBride did not file statements of evidence. Oral evidence [65] Mr Channells gave evidence at the hearing. He confirmed the contents of his first and second affidavits. [66] He referred to paragraph 17 of his first affidavit setting out the amounts owed to Aspect Homes by Ms McBride. He also referred to paragraphs 24–40 of Aspect Homes’ closing submissions for interest and costs. The interest is calculated in accordance with item 21 of the schedule to the contract, 10% per annum. The costs are calculated in accordance with clause 25.7(b) of the general conditions, indemnity costs. [67] The claim is for $61,680.00. Interest is $19,568.61 and costs are $26,755.59. Consideration Aspect Homes’ closing submissions [68] Aspect Homes filed in the Tribunal written submissions in closing. It sets out the background to the proceeding, noting: (a) Ms McBride did not file submissions in the Magistrates Court; (b) Ms McBride did not attend the compulsory conference; (c) Ms McBride did not comply with the directions given by the Tribunal on 26 February 2025; (d) Ms McBride did not comply with the directions given by the Tribunal on 17 April 2025; and (e) Ms McBride did not comply with the directions given by the Tribunal on 23 July 2025. [69] The conduct of Ms McBride is then outlined and reference is made to Aspect Homes’ material. [70] The calculation of interest and costs are set out in paragraphs 24–40 of the submissions. Reference is made to the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in Olindaridge -- 11 of 14 -- 12 Pty Ltd & Wagner v Tracey.3 There, the Tribunal said: The QBCC Act is an enabling Act under the QCAT Act, which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal. Section 77 of the QBCC Act provides that a person involved in a building dispute may apply to QCAT to decide the dispute. The Tribunal’s powers to resolve the dispute include a power to award costs. In Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd, the Appeal Tribunal held that in building proceedings, the Tribunal has a broad general discretion under s 77 of the QBCC Act to award costs as are justified in the particular circumstances. The discretion, it said, must be exercised judicially, ‘upon facts connected with or leading up to the litigation’. As a matter of construction, s 77 of the QBCC Act is a modifying provision, which prevails over the QCAT Act provisions to the extent of the inconsistency. There is no strong contra-indication in s 77 against a costs order: broadly speaking, costs may be awarded, if an award is justified in the relevant circumstances. (Citations omitted) [71] Costs, it is submitted, should be ordered if justified in the circumstances.4 The Tribunal’s discretion is a broad discretion that must be exercised ‘… judicially … upon facts connected with or leading up to the litigation …’5 If the successful party has reasonably incurred legal costs, ‘… it could not be said to be in the interest of justice to allow that success to be eroded …’6 [72] The matters to which the Tribunal may have regard are set out in section 102(3) of the QCAT Act.7 [73] Aspect Homes submits that in the light of Ms McBride’s conduct, the interests of justice require the Tribunal to make an order for costs. The matters to be considered by the Tribunal include: (a) the nature and complexity of the dispute the subject of the proceeding; (b) the relevant strengths of the claims made by each of the parties to the proceeding; and (c) anything else the Tribunal considers relevant. [74] Aspect Homes submits costs must be fixed and only make an order requiring a costs assessment if it is not possible to fix the costs.8 In doing so, Aspect Homes rely on the decision in Arcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority.9 There, the Tribunal said: When fixing costs, the Tribunal is not bound by any particular scale of costs, although the scales used by the mainstream courts can be a useful guide. Also the Tribunal is also not bound by any rules of assessment or usual practice as to the basis of assessment (standard or indemnity). The aim is to make an award which is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. 3 [2015] QCATA 175, [7]. 4 Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd (‘Lyons’) [2011] QCATA 142, [33]. 5 Ibid. 6 Thomas v Nielson [2012] QCAT 225, [11] (‘Thomas’), citing Tamawood Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111. 7 Thomas [15]. 8 QCAT Act s 107. 9 [2013] QCAT 573, [32]. -- 12 of 14 -- 13 [75] The costs claimed by Aspect Homes total $26,755.26, calculated as follows: Date Invoice number Amount 29 June 2023 Invoice number 876 $3,663.34 10 July 2023 Invoice number 889 $859.27 11 November 2025 Invoice number 1812 $22,232.65 $26,755.26* *The total is shown as $26,755.59. In fact, it is $26,755.26. Claim [76] I accept the evidence of Aspect Homes in its claim and statement of the claim, and the affidavits filed in the Magistrates Court and Tribunal and the oral evidence and submissions by Aspect Homes. In my opinion, Aspect Homes is entitled to recover from Ms McBride the claim for $61,680.00. [77] I have had regard to the defence and counterclaim of Ms McBride and the Pre- Purchase Standard Property Report. The items identified, later to become the complaint items investigated by Queensland Building and Construction Commission, are minor items with an estimated cost to rectify the non-structural complaint items at about $2,189.00. Whilst the estimated cost may be appropriate and reasonable, I am without evidence supporting the claim by Ms McBride. The Commission’s rejection of the items, in my opinion, is soundly based and must be accepted. [78] There will be an order that Ms McBride pay to Aspect Homes $61,680.00. Counterclaim [79] The counterclaim is without particulars or supporting evidence. In any case, Queensland Building and Construction Commission estimate the cost to rectify the non-structural complaint items at about $2,189.00. [80] The timing of the complaint items and the lack of attention given them over about two years and four months smacks of procrastination. The counterclaim is dismissed. Interest [81] Interest, under item 21 of the schedule to the contract and clause 25.7 of the general conditions, is payable at the rate of the 10% per annum from the day after the date the payment was due until the date of payment. Invoice number 1055 dated 19 September 2022 for $61,680.00 was due for payment by 24 September 2022, five days after the date of the invoice. Interest calculated in accordance with the schedule and general conditions from 25 September 2022 until 24 November 2025 totals $19,568.61. [82] There will be an order that the amount be paid by Ms McBride to Aspect Homes. Costs [83] The legal costs sought by Aspect Homes are set out in paragraph [75] of these reasons for decision. The entitlement is to indemnity costs. -- 13 of 14 -- 14 [84] Fixing costs without an itemised bill of costs is not an easy task. However, without being bound by the usual practices and rules for the assessment of costs, I am satisfied the amounts claimed for costs in the Magistrates Court and Tribunal are reasonable. [85] There will be an order that Ms McBride pay to Aspect Homes $26,755.26 for costs. Summary [86] In summary, having regard to the whole of the evidence before the Tribunal, including the evidence before the Magistrates Court, I am satisfied Ms McBride owes to Aspect Homes the claim in the sum of the $61,680.00. The failure by Ms McBride to pay the final progress claim smacks of her exploiting an immediate opportunity in circumstances where there was either no or little grounds for doing so. [87] Aspect Homes is entitled to interest of $19,568.61 and costs of $26,755.26. [88] The total entitlement is to $108,003.87. There will be an order that the amount be paid by Ms McBride to Aspect Homes. Decision [89] The decision of the Tribunal is as follows: 1. The application by Ms McBride filed 25 November 2025 to stay a proceeding on the grounds she has not received sufficient documentation and requires time to discuss the proceeding with a lawyer is dismissed. 2. Ms McBride pay to Aspect Homes $108,003.87, calculated as follows: Claim $ 61,680.00 Interest $ 19,568.61 Costs $ 26,755.26 $108,003.87 3. The counterclaim by Ms McBride is dismissed. 4. The reasons for this decision are reserved. 4. This decision be served on the parties by email. -- 14 of 14 --