Blue Dream Pty Ltd v Brett Laurence Broom t/as Creative Coatings [2025] QCAT 553

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Blue Dream Pty Ltd v Brett Laurence Broom t/as Creative Coatings [2025] QCAT 553 PARTIES: BLUE DREAM PTY LTD (applicant) v BRETT LAURENCE BROOM T/AS CREATIVE COATINGS (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: BDL040-24 MATTER TYPE: Building matters DELIVERED ON: 19 December 2025 HEARING DATE: On Papers Hearing HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member D Brown ORDERS: The application filed on 24 October 2022 and transferred to the building list on 17 February 2023 is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – PERFORMANCE OF ROOFING WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – RESTITUTION – UNJUST ENRICHMENT where there was no formal contract in writing signed by the parties – where building contractor failed to complete all work – whether homeowner entitled to recover in damages or restitution – consideration of unjust enrichment Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Goo v Sim [2022] NSWSC 420 Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32 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) -- 1 of 8 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION Background [1] On 24 October 2022 the applicant, Blue Dream Pty Ltd (“Blue Dream”) filed an application for Minor Civil Dispute – Consumer Trader matter seeking $12,867 from the respondent, Creative Coatings being a refund of $12,500 plus $367 costs relating to the tribunal filing fee. On 17 February 2023 the application was transferred to the building list given the application was for a liquidated claim relating to a building dispute which is outside of the minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The respondent’s name was corrected on 15 February 2024 to Brett Laurence Broom t/a Creative Coatings (“Brett Broom”). [2] The dispute relates to an agreement in relation to replacement of a roof at a property in Marine Parade, Labrador. Blue Dream enquired about the cost to replace the roof at a property they managed in Marine Parade Labrador and on 30 August 2021 Brett Broom provided a quote of $25,000 to complete the work. Blue Dream sought quotes from two other roofing companies who were significantly more expensive and on 23 October 2021 confirmed that they were seeking to arrange the work through Brett Broom. On 24 October 2021 Brett Broom advised a 50% deposit of $12,500 would be required as material costs exceed labour costs. The deposit of $12,500 was paid by Blue Dream on 26 October 2021. [3] There was on going messages between Blue Dream and Brett Broom between October 2021 and August 2022 in relation to the completion of the roofing work as well as completion of work on other properties managed by Blue Dream. On 29 May 2022 Blue Dream advised they needed the work to replace the roof completed within the next week otherwise they would like to cancel the job and get the deposit back. On 30 May 2022 Brett Broom replied confirming he couldn’t guarantee that the contractors would be able to do the work in that timeframe and if the job is cancelled the deposit won’t be refunded as he has already purchased the roof and flashings for the job. [4] On 28 August 2022 Blue Dream advised Brett Broom that they were terminating the agreement due to Brett Broom’s breach of the agreement by failure to complete the work and requested the immediate return of the deposit. The deposit was never returned. Statutory framework – building disputes [5] The relevant enabling Act is the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘QBCC Act’). 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’. I am satisfied that these obligations have been complied with, based on the letter from the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) dated 23 September 2022. [6] For the purpose of the tribunal, a building dispute includes a domestic building dispute, which is defined to include a dispute between a building owner and a building contractor relating to the performance of reviewable domestic work or a contract for the performance of reviewable domestic work.2 The terms “building owner” and 1 QBCC Act s 77. 2 Ibid sch 2. -- 2 of 8 -- 3 “building contractor” are also defined in the QBCC Act.3 A “building owner” generally means a person for whom domestic building work has been, is being, or is to be, carried out. The tribunal is satisfied that Brett Broom is a building contractor and even though Blue Dream is not the freehold owner of the land the building is on, and are the agents authorised by the owner to manage the property, as they are the people who engaged Brett Broom to do the work, they meet the definition of a building owner. [7] Reviewable domestic work means domestic building work under Schedule 1B, s 4 of the QBCC Act. The tribunal is satisfied that the building works the subject of the dispute was domestic building work and that the dispute between the parties is a domestic building dispute. Accordingly, the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute [8] Pursuant to Schedule 2 of the QBCC Act, a domestic building dispute includes a claim or dispute in both contract and negligence. However, for a claim in contract, s 14 of Schedule 1B of the QBCC Act requires that a Level 2 regulated contract, which this matter is, as the contract price was over $20,000, must be in writing, dated and signed by or on behalf of each of the parties. It must also contain a number of essential matters including a description of the subject work, any plans and specifications for the work and the contract price and the date for practical completion. Failing the contract being in writing, and dated and signed by each party, the contract has no effect.4 Material filed and Procedural Issues [9] There is limited material filed in the building proceedings with the majority of the material filed when the matter was before the minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The evidence is largely just the application and response documents and copies of SMS text messages and emails between the parties. Directions were issued by the tribunal to try and guide the parties as to the level of evidence required to prove the claim and/or defence to the claim, however neither party complied with the directions. [10] The material filed in the minor civil dispute proceedings in addition to the Form 1 Application for minor civil dispute was: (a) The quote dated 30 August 2021, and the invoice for the deposit dated 24 October 2021. (b) Email communication from 26 October 2021 confirming the deposit of $12,500 has been paid together with an ANZ lodgement receipt. (c) Text messages between Blue Dream and Brett Broom from September 2021 to 30 May 2022 in relation to the roof replacement. (d) Emails from Blue Dream in August 2022 confirming they were terminating the agreement. (e) A QBCC complain form, statement of contract agreement provided to QBCC and a letter from QBCC dated 23 September 2022 confirming the claim under the Home Warranty Scheme was refused. 3 Ibid sch 1B s 1. 4 Ibid sch 1B s 14(10). -- 3 of 8 -- 4 (f) Photographs of iron materials and the property. (g) Emails to and from T&L Asbestos removal advising that they have never received any deposit from the respondent. (h) An undated5 and unsigned statement addressed to the adjudicator in which Blue Dream disputes Brett Broom’s position as asserted at the mediation that the deposit was non-refundable as it had been used to purchase roofing material. Blue Dream assert the deposit had been meant for asbestos removal costs and the respondent had not paid any such costs so had no right to use the deposit for any other purpose. Blue Dream also requested that they be compensated for the roof project costs increase seeking a minimum of $7,980.50. (i) Two quotes from AMJ Metal Roofing dated 27 September 2021 and 9 December 2022 and two quotes from MRA Roofing and Construction dated 23 September 2021 and 9 December 2022. [11] Directions were issued on 1 May 2024 directing Blue Dream to file in the tribunal a copy of a statement of evidence by 29 May 2024 addressing: (a) whether Brett Laurence Broom t/as Creative Coatings has paid to Blue Dream Pty Ltd any part of the monies claimed by Blue Dream Pty Ltd; (b) attaching a QBCC license search of Brett Laurence Broom t/as Creative Coatings; (c) setting out the amount claimed by Blue Dream Pty Ltd, including costs. Blue Dream did not comply with this direction. [12] On 3 July 2024 Brett Broom filed a response to the claim. Brett Broom asserts that the deposit should not be refunded as he had already obtained custom cut roofing for the property, and these materials are still at the property and able to be used by the applicant. Prior to filing the response on 15 May 2024 Brett Broom sent copies of email chain conversations between himself and Blue Dream between March and May 2024 where he had discussed the roofing material which had been left at the property and provided photographs of the material. [13] Further directions were issued on 8 August 2024 directing Blue Dream to file their statements of evidence by 29 August 2024 and Brett Broom to file his statements of evidence by 19 September 2024. The directions noted that no party will be allowed to present any evidence at the hearing that is not contained in the statements without justifying the need for such additional evidence. Neither party complied with these directions. [14] On 22 November 2024 the tribunal extended the date of compliance requiring Blue Dream to file their evidence by 15 January 2025 and Brett Broom to file his evidence by 17 February 2025. The directions also noted that the proceedings will be determined on the papers, regardless of whether the parties comply with the directions on a date to be set after 3 March 2025. Neither party complied with the direction and no statements were filed. 5 The statement was sent to the Southport Magistrates Court by email on 19 Janaury 2023. -- 4 of 8 -- 5 [15] This is the decision on the papers in line with the directions issued on 22 November 2025. All material that has been filed by both parties has been considered in this decision. Findings [16] The rule of the common law is that, where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, or for a breach of duty in tort, they are, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed. Damages may include the cost of rectification work.6 The tribunal however needs to consider any specific statutory provision relating to any claim which may override common law precedent. [17] It is unclear from the material before the tribunal, exactly what Blue Dream are seeking or whether their claim is based in breach of contract, tort or restitution, however there is some reference to seeking the return of the deposit due to Brett Broom breaching the contract. Blue Dream was given the opportunity to clarify what orders they were seeking the tribunal make, what amount they were claiming and to provide evidence to demonstrate how the claim was calculated and why they were entitled to this compensation and/or damages, however, Blue Dream declined to file this material. [18] In this matter, there is no evidence of any written and signed contract between the parties, and it appears to be conceded there is no written contact. While the quote may demonstrate an offer and the tax invoices may demonstrate evidence of acceptance and consideration to form an oral contract, the difficulty for Blue Dream is that this is not sufficient in a building dispute where the contract price is over $3,300 making it a regulated contract. [19] While it is accepted that Blue Dream asked for a contact from Brett Broom and did not receive one, regardless of whose “fault” it is that there is no written contact, as there is no written contract, this breaches the requirements for a Level 2 regulated contract set out in s 14(2) Schedule 1B of the QBCC Act. In the absence of evidence of a signed and dated contract, the agreement between the parties is of no legal effect and Blue Dream is unable to recover damages for breach of contract. [20] As it is not alleged that there is any negligent or defective work, rather that the work did not commence, the tribunal finds that there is not sufficient evidence to establish that Brett Broom owed Blue Dream a duty of care, that Brett Broom has breached that duty and as a result of the breach Blue Dream has suffered a loss. The tribunal therefore can not find that there is any claim in tort. [21] One of the issues is that with the lack of any written contract it is difficult to determine what the agreement was, and accordingly what duties were owed. It is acknowledged that Blue Dream asked for the work to be completed as soon as possible and there was considerable delay in completing the work and ultimately the roof was never replaced. It is however noted that Blue Dream asked Brett Broom to complete other work on other properties, much of which appears to have been completed. It is difficult to ascertain from the text messages, what the agreement was between the parties about the timing of this work and whether the other jobs were to take precedence. In addition, even if it could be established that there was a duty owed by Brett Broom to 6 Atkinson & Anor v Van Uden [2020] QCAT 259, [61]. -- 5 of 8 -- 6 Blue Dream which has been breached, there is no evidence of loss as a result of any breach. [22] It is accepted that Blue Dream have provided invoices from AMJ Metal Roofing and MRA Roofing and Construction a year apart showing increases in costs, but there is no evidence that Blue Dream engaged either of these companies and as such that there was any actual loss to Blue Dream. There is a complete lack of evidence before the tribunal as to what has occurred in relation to the replacement of the roof since Blue Dream terminated the contact in August 2022. Given it has been four years since the request was made to repair the roof in 2021 and three years since Blue Dream terminated the agreement due to the failure by Brett Broom to complete the work, one would have expected that some action has been taken to repair the roof. However as Blue Dream have not provided any evidence as to what has occurred, there is no information before the tribunal in this regard and therefore no evidence of whether Blue Dream suffered any loss. [23] As Blue Dream’s request for the return of the deposit appears to be a request for restitution as opposed to damages, given it relates to work paid for which was not completed, the tribunal has considered whether there is any entitlement in restitution. The case law authorities have held that even where there is no enforceable contract (including where there is no contract in writing) there can be a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment in building disputes.7 [24] To establish a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment, it must be established that the respondent (in this case Brett Broom) has received a benefit at the applicant’s (in this case Blue Dream’s) expense in circumstances where there is evidence that it would be unjust for the respondent to retain it.8 It is accepted that Blue Dream paid $12,500 to Brett Broom as a deposit for roofing work and that Brett Broom did not complete the full job quoted for, which was to replace the roof. [25] The key questions in this matter are what if any work did Mr Broom complete and what was the value of the work that Brett Broom performed before the contact was terminated? [26] The tribunal finds that Brett Broom did obtain custom roofing sheets and guttering for the specific size of the roof at the Marine Parade property and that those roofing sheets remained at the property and can be used by Blue Dream to replace the roof. While it is accepted that Blue Dream appear to deny that this has occurred, based on the emails from Elaine Yu, which stated they do not accept the photographs which Brett Broom states depict the roofing materials on the property and state they did not receive any roofing material, the tribunal does not find this persuasive evidence and does not accept the applicant’s position in this regard. [27] Brett Broom has been consistent in his position. When there were discussions in May 2022 about terminating the contract, he advised that the roof and flashings had already been purchased but could be used by another contractor to do the labour component. The Response filed three years later provides the same explanation, as do the emails to Blue Dream. Brett Broom also provided photographs of the roofing being stored at the premises in November 2022. Ms Yu’s denial of the roofing being at the premises is inconsistent with the earlier evidence of Blue Dream. In the application filed by 7 Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32. 8 Goo v Sim [2022] NSWSC 420. -- 6 of 8 -- 7 Liang Kong on behalf of Blue Dream, there are photographs of iron roofing at the property and in the statement of contractual agreement signed by Liang Kong on 18 August 2022 it states that Brett Broom left 30–40 steel sheets at the site for several months. [28] As the tribunal finds that Brett Broom has completed some of the work required, in that he has ordered and obtained the material for the replacement roof, but did not remove the old roof and replace it with the newly purchased material, the question to be determined is, what is the value of the work completed and would it be unjust for Brett Broom to retain the benefit of all or some of the monies he received from Blue Dream. Unfortunately, neither party has filed any material to assist the tribunal in determining what the exact monetary value of the roofing material that remained at the premises is. [29] Blue Dream assert that they should be refunded the full deposit. However, other than stating the final product (being the replacement roof) has not occurred, there is little evidence to support this. They do not appear to address Brett Broom’s position that he is entitled to the deposit due to the work and costs incurred in obtaining the roofing material other than stating that the deposit was paid due to the asbestos company making a special request and Brett Broom was not legally entitled to use the deposit for any other purpose9 and that the payment paid to Brett Broom was to complete the whole job, including replacing the roof.10 [30] The tribunal does not accept the applicant’s position about the nature of the deposit. It is clear that the $12,500 was a deposit only and it was for 50% of the costs of the entire work. Therefore, Blue Dream have not paid for the completion of the whole job as was asserted by Ms Elaine Yu. The tribunal also does not accept that the deposit was only for the purpose of paying the asbestos removal company and cannot be used for any other purpose. The tax invoice for the deposit makes no reference to the use and simply says “50% deposit required prior to commencement”. At the time the deposit was discussed Brett Broom advised that the contractors had asked for a 50% deposit up front as material costs exceed labour cost. While it is accepted that just prior to that request for a deposit there has been discussions about the asbestos removal company, which may have led Blue Dream to believe that these were the contractors who made this request, Brett Broom made no reference to what contractors it was. There is therefore no legal impediment on Brett Broom using the deposit for other costs. [31] It is accepted that it is reasonable to expect that for work involving the replacement of a roof, there would be costs relating to material which need to be paid up front, prior to the labour work engaged in removing the old roof and replacing it with a new one. While the tribunal does not have any specific evidence of the costs of the materials purchased, Brett Broom has consistently advised that the material costs are more than the labour costs. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to contradict Brett Broom’s position, the tribunal accepts that the material costs would have been at least half the costs. Given half the quoted amount has been paid in the deposit, and as no evidence has been provided of any other costs/materials required to complete the roofing work, the tribunal does not have any evidence to demonstrate that it would be unjust for Brett Broom to retain the deposit of $12,500 for the work which he did 9 Unsigned statement provided to the adjudicator in the minor civil dispute proceedings. 10 Email of Elain Yu dated 15 May 2024. -- 7 of 8 -- 8 prior to the agreement being terminated. The tribunal therefore cannot find that there is any claim in restitution. [32] This is Blue Dream’s application, and it is Blue Dream’s responsibility to provide evidence to support the application to satisfy the tribunal on all elements on the balance of probabilities. The tribunal sought to provide guidance to Blue Dream as an unrepresented applicant as to what was required in the directions, however these directions were ignored, and no material was provided. [33] Blue Dream’s failure to comply with the tribunal’s directions to provide a further statement, has resulted in a failure to provide sufficient evidence to support their application. Accordingly, the application must fail and the only order the tribunal can make is to dismiss the application. -- 8 of 8 --