Bellamy Plumbing t/as Wastewater Systems QLD v O'Brien [2013] QCAT 640

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 [1] 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. [2] 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. [3] 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. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 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. [4] 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. [5] 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. [6] 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. [7] In those tax invoices there is a description of what the charge is for. [8] 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 [9] 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. [10] 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. [11] 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. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [12] 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. [13] The application is dismissed. -- 3 of 3 --