Blue Wren Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Civic Showers Screens and Wardrobes v Serenity Constructions Qld Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 359

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Blue Wren Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Civic Showers Screens and Wardrobes v Serenity Constructions Qld Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 359 PARTIES: BLUE WREN HOLDINGS PTY LTD TRADING AS CIVIC SHOWER SCREENS AND WARDROBES (applicant) v SERENITY CONSTRUCTIONS QLD PTY LTD (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: BDL294-24 MATTER TYPE: Building matters DELIVERED ON: 30 July 2026 HEARING DATE: On the Papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member S M Burke ORDERS: The Respondent is to make payment to the Applicant in the sum of $6,583.14 on or before 3 September 2026. CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – where subcontractor performed building work – where allegation of defective works – failure of party to comply with directions – failure of party to deliver any evidence before the Tribunal Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77(2) 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] On 23 August 2024, the Applicant filed an application for a commercial building dispute, claiming the sum of $8,357.14 for unpaid invoices for works performed at Lot 135, 2 Sunset Place Jacobs Well, Queensland (‘the property’). [2] The Respondent was the contractor engaged by the owners to carry out the renovation and extension of a three-storey dwelling at the property. -- 1 of 4 -- 2 [3] The Applicant was the subcontractor engaged by the contractor to carry out the installation of a number of shower screens and other related works at the property. [4] On or about 28 September 2023, a purchase order No. 00034004 was raised by the contractor for the following works: (a) Shower screens, mirrors, robe shelving/Civic shr screens/As per quote [5] The subcontractor carried out the subcontract works between 27 September 2023 and 31 October 2023. The Directions and Compliance [6] In compliance with the Tribunal’s directions of 8 September 2024, the Applicant filed a copy of a letter from the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (‘QBCC’) on 11 September 2024 confirming compliance with s 77(2) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) regarding the process established to resolve the dispute between the parties. [7] By directions on 2 December 2024, the Respondent was required to file in the Tribunal a response to the application for a commercial building dispute by 16 December 2024. [8] The Respondent’s response stated: (a) the Applicant has refused and/or failed to rectify defective workmanship carried out by the Applicant despite numerous requests from the Respondent; (b) the Respondent requests the Applicant: (i) to rectify the defective workmanship as advised by the Respondent including the rectification of any damage caused whilst carrying out the work at its own cost; or (ii) the Respondent is to rectify the works and deduct the cost to rectify the work from monies claimed to be owed to the Applicant. [9] On 17 January 2025, the Tribunal delivered directions addressing the obligations of the parties to file statements of evidence and any documents relied upon by the Applicant and the Respondent on 27 February 2025 and 10 April 2025, respectively. [10] Further, the parties were required to produce a Scott Schedule addressing the alleged defective and incomplete work. Neither party provided details in the form of a Scott Schedule. [11] Further directions were made by the Tribunal on 24 July 2025 addressing the delivery of evidence from both parties, including the required common form Scott Schedule. [12] Once again there was no response from the Respondent. [13] On 20 October 2025, the Tribunal directed that in the event of non-compliance by the Respondent by 17 November 2025, the Respondent would not be permitted to file and rely upon any statements of evidence unless the Tribunal otherwise ordered. [14] On 12 December 2025, the Tribunal directed that the matter would proceed on the papers unless the parties advised that an oral hearing was required. No request for an oral hearing was made. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [15] The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of the material filed by both parties by January 2026. The Claim [16] The Applicant claims the following amounts for payment pursuant to the agreement between the parties: (a) Invoice #79046 dated 23 October 2023 – $3,969.90; (b) Invoice #79711 dated 26 October 2023 – $2,834.70; and (c) Invoice #80529 dated 31 October 2023 – $1,552.54. [17] Between 7 November 2023 and June 2024, Mr Keith Mellor, on behalf of the Applicant, and Mr Bill Woolley, on behalf of the Respondent, engaged in continued debate about the outstanding invoices and defects alleged to have been caused by the Applicant during installation of the shower screens. [18] The statement filed 4 March 2025 by the managing director of the Applicant, Mr Stefan Styles, sets out all the correspondence between the parties regarding the outstanding invoices and the allegations regarding the defective works. [19] A further statement has been provided by the Applicant’s field supervisor, Mr Keith Mellor, who was involved in all the negotiations with the Respondent’s representative, Mr Bill Woolley. [20] There is no necessity for the Tribunal to traverse every item of written and oral correspondence. [21] It is obvious that by June 2024, there was an agreement between the parties that the defective works were to be attended to by the Applicant and payment was to be made for the outstanding tax invoices supplied. [22] The issue which remained was the extent of rectification work and the associated cost. [23] The rectification of defective works included replacement of a mirror that was measured wrongly, rectification of a scratched panel in the 2-way bathroom and replacement of a linen cupboard. [24] The parties had agreed that the cost of the alleged defective works would be in the sum of $1,607.00 plus GST. [25] On 24 June 2024, the Applicant outlined that after taking into account the costs for rectification works, the sum outstanding which the Applicant was prepared to accept was $6,000.00. [26] No reply from the Respondent was received until an acknowledgement of the outstanding amount and necessity for rectification works on 12 August 2024. Further complaints of works requiring rectification were added to the list. [27] On 13 August 2024, the Applicant advised that it would not be completing any further works until the agreed amount of $6,000.00 outstanding was paid by the Respondent. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [28] The Respondent confirmed that due to the Applicant’s refusal to rectify the defective works, it would proceed to have the rectification works carried out and deduct all cost from the monies held. [29] There was no follow-up by the Respondent to this proposal. [30] No material has been delivered by the Respondent identifying any costs incurred for further rectification works. [31] I am satisfied on the material provided that it was agreed at the meeting between Mr Mellor and Mr Woolley on 21 June 2024, as confirmed by email on 24 June 2024, that the amount of $1,607.00 plus GST would be deducted from the invoices submitted for the rectification of defective works. [32] On 24 June 2024, the Applicant made an offer to accept $6,000.00 as payment for the outstanding invoices after deduction of $2,357.14 for rectification costs. [33] After this date, it is the case that the Respondent did not confirm this agreement and later raised the issue of additional defects and the right to withhold monies until the defects were rectified. [34] Given there is no evidence from the Respondent regarding the cost of rectification works incurred by it, the Tribunal is unable to assess whether the Respondent is entitled to deduct any other amounts from the outstanding amount owing to the Applicant. [35] The Applicant does not deny that there were works which required rectification to the value of $1,607.00 (plus GST). [36] I am satisfied that the amount outstanding to the Applicant is the amount of the outstanding invoices, being $8,357.14 less the amount of $1,774.00 (being the amount of $1,607.00 plus GST). Such outstanding sum totals $6,583.14. Orders [37] The Respondent is to make payment to the Applicant in the sum of $6,583.14 being the amount owed by the Respondent to the Applicant for the outstanding invoices less the cost of rectification works. -- 4 of 4 --