Chiow Gek Inn v Harlem Jett Kanivato [2025] QCAT 342

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Chiow Gek Inn v Harlem Jett Kanivato [2025] QCAT 342 PARTIES: CHIOW GEK INN (applicant) v HARLEM JETT KANIVATOA (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: BDL216-24 MATTER TYPE: Domestic Dispute DELIVERED ON: 1 September 2025 HEARING DATE: 25 August 2025 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member S M Burke ORDERS: The Respondent is to make payment to the Applicant the sum of $2,665.00 on or before 1 October 2025. CATCHWORDS: DOMESTIC BUILDING DISPUTE – defective works – failure of parties to comply with directions – failure of party to deliver any evidence before the Tribunal 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 [1] The Applicant, Chiow Gek Inn, is the registered owner of a rental property at 18 Lockerbie Court Boronia Heights, Queensland. [2] On 25 June 2024, Little Real Estate, on behalf of the Applicant, filed an application for a domestic building dispute in relation to works carried out by the Respondent at the Applicant’s property. Little Real Estate, of 255 Forest Lake Boulevard, Forest Lake was the property manager for the Applicant who was the landlord of the property. [3] The Applicant claims a refund of $25,000 for defective and unlicensed works undertaken by the Respondent in his capacity as the owner of Trend Setter Interiors. The defective works undertaken related to a renovation of the kitchen, flooring throughout the property and the replacement of internal doorknobs and hinges throughout the property. [4] The Applicant alleges that deposits were paid for the renovation works and payments made on invoices submitted by the Respondent. It is alleged that the works were not -- 1 of 3 -- 2 completed by the Respondent and the works which were completed were defective and not to an acceptable standard. [5] Attached to the Applicant’s application, the Applicant submitted a timeline of payments made to Trend Setter Interiors. [6] The Applicant alleges that the works had to be rectified and completed by EZPZ Property Maintenance (“EZPZ”) and has submitted invoices submitted by EZPZ for the works undertaken. These invoices include items which are additional to the works which were to be undertaken by the Respondent. [7] No other material has been supplied by the Applicant by way of evidence other than a routine inspection report by Little Real Estate on 22 January 2024. [8] No material has been supplied by the Respondent in response to any of the Applicant’s complaints. [9] No written agreement between the parties has been provided to the Tribunal. A licence search indicates that the Respondent was not a licensed contractor. Directions [10] On 4 July 2024, the Tribunal made directions relating to: (a) service of documents by the Applicant on the Respondent; (b) provision of a copy of a contract in respect of the building works the subject of the dispute; (c) a copy of a QBCC licence search of the Respondent; (d) copies of evidence to be relied upon by the Applicant; (e) copies of any response by the Respondent. [11] The Tribunal directed that in the event that the Applicant complied with the direction to provide an affidavit of service on the Respondent and the Respondent failed to comply with the direction to provide a response, the Applicant may be entitled to a final decision. [12] Further directions were made by the Tribunal on 24 July 2025 relating to the provision of material by both parties of any evidence on which each party intended to rely. It was directed that the matter would be hearing on the papers without any further appearances or representation by the parties. Evidence provided by the Applicant [13] As no material has been submitted by the Respondent, in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal on 4 July 2024 and 20 March 2025, the Tribunal proceeds to assess the Applicant’s claim based on the material on which the Applicant relies. [14] The material provided by the Applicant, in the form of a timeline of payments and tax invoices submitted by the Respondent, identifies that the following payments have been made by the Applicant: (a) 15/6/2023 – deposit for painting - $3,000.00 (b) 15/6/2023 – deposit for kitchen - $4,000.00 -- 2 of 3 -- 3 (c) 17/7/2023 – deposit for vinyl flooring - $3,500.00 (d) 31/7/2023 – balance of painting - $5,115.00 (e) 3/8/2023 – painting - $4,125.00 (f) 27/8/2023 – balance of flooring - $9,914.50 (g) 9/11/2023 – doorknobs and sundry - $1,758.60 (h) 13/1/2024 – doorknobs and sundry - $308.00 [15] Tax invoices from EZPZ dated 29 February 2024 to 22 March 2024, identify the works which were carried out after the Respondent had left the site. [16] Many of the invoices include items which did not form part of any agreement between the Applicant and the Respondent. Some of the invoices relate to works which had been undertaken by the Respondent. [17] EZPZ invoice 139834 dated 29 February 2024, identifies that the vinyl plank flooring to the kitchen, family room and hallways was carried out at a cost of $2,345.00. This work was obviously necessary due to the defective work carried out by the Respondent. [18] EZPZ invoice 139400 relates to the work carried out by EZPZ supplying and installing a new custom-made kitchen. As the only amount paid by the Applicant to the Respondent in relation to the kitchen was the deposit, this item is a cost which the Applicant was always going to incur as part of the renovation costs. No other items on this invoice have been incurred by the Applicant as a result of any defective work provided by the Respondent or in relation to items for which payment has already been made to the Respondent. [19] EZPZ invoice 139833 relates to works undertaken by EZPZ including the installation of handles and doorknobs in various rooms of the property. The cost of the items claimed in the invoice is $1,074.00 There is no evidence that these items were included in the payment of $2,066.00 already paid to the Respondent. There is a possibility that these items were additional to those fittings already installed. In the absence of evidence, it is not possible to determine whether these items were to be refunded to the Applicant. [20] EZPZ invoice 139833 refers to rectifying the internal deadlock installed in the garage. This is work which was carried out by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Applicant is entitled to claim the cost of rectification in the sum of $320.00. [21] Based on the material provided by the Applicant, the Tribunal determines that the Applicant was required to rectify works provided by the Respondent in relation to the vinyl flooring and the defective garage locks. Those items total the sum of $2,665.00. Orders [22] The Respondent is to make payment to the Applicant the sum of $2,665.00 as rectification costs incurred by the Applicant resulting from faulty work provided by the Respondent at the Applicant’s rental property. -- 3 of 3 --