Dias & Anor v Dale Hassam trading as Richters Kitchen and Glass No. 2 [2026] QCAT 372

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Dias & Butcher v Dale Hassam trading as Richters Kitchen and Glass No. 2 [2026] QCAT 372 PARTIES: STEVEN DIAS and NICOLE BUTCHER (applicants) v DALE HASSAM TRADING AS RICHTERS KITCHEN AND GLASS ( respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: BDL033-25 MATTER TYPE: DELIVERED ON: Building matters 11 August 2026 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Roney KC ORDER/S: I dismiss the applications filed 21 May 2026 and 25 May 2026 by the respondent to correct and stay the Tribunal decision of 9 March 2026. CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – GENERALLY – PERFORMANCE OF WORK – REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES –TRUST AS NON-LEGAL ENTITIES– where home owners contracted with a cabinetmaker to construct a kitchen to an existing house – where the owners recovered damages for the cost of replacing the kitchen entirely rather than repairing or completing existing work– where after judgement the respondent builder sought to amend the identity of the respondent to the name of a Family Trust a non- legal personality APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicants: Self-Represented Respondent: Self-Represented -- 1 of 5 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] In reasons delivered on 9 March 2026 I upheld claims against the respondent builder and ordered and declared that the applicants were relieved from payment of any further sum which might have fallen due under the building contract, and declared that there was no further payment due. I also ordered that the applicants be awarded damages or compensation for breach of contract in the sum of $34,450 against the respondent, with such sum to be paid within 30 days of the making of those orders. I granted the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made. [2] I found that the applicants had entered into a Master Builders QLD - Basic Works Contract - Residential) with the respondent, who operated a cabinet making business called Richters Joinery and traded as Richters Kitchen and Glass. The contract provided for the construction and installation of a kitchen in their home in Agnes Waters for a price for the works of $38,220.67. [3] I noted in the second paragraph of the reasons that “There were some irregularities in relation to who the proper parties were to the dispute, and which I drew to the attention of the parties. They included that in fact, only the female applicant was named on the contract, and the party named as the builder was identified as something suggesting it was a corporation not a natural person. I was told by the parties to proceed on the basis that the parties to the contract were the parties to this proceeding and I have done so”. [4] On 21 May 2026 the unsuccessful respondent filed a Form 43 Application to amend the name of the respondent to “the trustee for Hassam Investments, trading as Richters Kitchen and Glass” and on 25 May 2026 a form 44 Application to stay a decision. The applications purported to be one to correct a decision on the stated basis that; The current respondent is listed as Dale Hassam, trading as Richters Kitchen and Glass. The basic works contract and ABN records identify the contracting entity as Hassam, Investment Trust trading as Richters Kitchen and Glass with (a particular) ABN. The Tribunal’s written reasons section (meaning paragraph) 2 recognised that the party named as the builder suggested an entity rather than a natural person, and the parties agreed to proceed on the basis that the parties to the contract were the parties to this proceeding. Dale Hassam was not a party to the building contract in his personal capacity. There is therefore an inconsistency between the respondent named in the proceeding, and the contracting entity identified in the basic works contract and ABN records. The correction is sought to ensure proper identification of the contracting party and to facilitate correct enforcement of any orders. -- 2 of 5 -- 3 The Tribunal's decision to be corrected is therefore the amendment of the respondent from Dale Hassam to the trustee for Hassam Investments, trading as Richters Kitchen and Glass. As stated at the hearing on 2 March Member Brown clarified that entity on the contract was the contractor not Dale Hassam. All parties agreed at the time." [5] I heard the matter on 2 March 2026, not Member Brown. [6] The assertions of the respondent in the applications are entirely inconsistent with what the record shows in fact occurred. I have obtained the oral hearing record for the purposes of this hearing on the papers. [7] It is well accepted at law that a trust is an arrangement under which a person holds property or assets for the benefit of others. The person holding the asset or property is the trustee. The people or companies for whose benefit it is held are the beneficiaries. Unlike a company, a trust is not a separate legal entity, although it is treated as a separate entity when it comes to registering for tax. That means the trustee is liable for any of the trust’s debts, but the trust itself is not a legal person per se. [8] What actually occurred at the hearing was that when I raised an apparent ambiguity about who was the builder under the contract, the parties acknowledged that the proper party named as the respondent was Mr Hassam, not some other entity. The parties most certainly did not proceed on the basis that some unidentified entity, which was a trustee of the trust, was the correct respondent. [9] Indeed, independently of the express affirmations from the respondent at the hearing that he was the proper party to the contract and the proper respondent to the claim, it is evident that the Master Builder's contract, which the parties signed, was made with a person having a particular QBCC licence number 1251501.He was the person who was the holder of that licence and said so when asked at the hearing. [10] Moreover, in February 2026 the respondent wrote to the Tribunal with a submission saying inter alia; I write on behalf of Dale Hassam t/ as Richters Joinery Kitchen and Glass, in relation to the above matter. This correspondence sets out the Respondent's position regarding the ongoing dispute and responds to major claims made by the Applicant… [11] It then set out that position without any contention being made that the wrong party was being sued. And later said; The Respondent respectfully submits that: 1. That the Applicant has interfered with the Respondent's ability to perform the contract. 2. The Applicant's refusal to permit access constitutes a breach of contract. 3. We believe in bring(ing) this action before QCAT and the ignoring the direction from QBCC to allow us to finish the job is blatant money grab in attempt to get a free kitchen. [12] That is consistent with a concession that the person who was the builder registered with the QBCC was the entity that did the work and should have been allowed to complete it. -- 3 of 5 -- 4 [13] The oral recording of the hearing before me shows that the matter was announced naming the respondent party as Dale Hassam trading as Richters glass. After the appearances were announced, (the applicants were on AVL) Mr Kent Hassam said he was from a consultancy and said he was there for the respondent. He said he was an administrative consultant for all of Mr Dale Hassam's businesses. Then the respondent Mr Hassam who was also present in person, confirmed that he was also speaking for respondent. [14] I then said that I just wanted to start with a couple of preliminary things before we got into the details. I said that the person named as the respondent was Dale Hassam. The Tribunal was then told by Mr Kent Hassam that Dale Hassam is his son and “it's a father and son operation”. [15] The Tribunal said “there seem to be a number of different names given to the respondent on the contract, which is the subject matter of the works contract. The entity named in the contract is Hassam Investment Trust. Is that a thing?” (meaning a legal entity). The response from the respondent was “It's a thing. That’s the family trust”. [16] When I asked who is the trustee of the family trust the response was “Hassam Investments” I asked “Is that a company?” The response was to suggest the answer to that was not known and a statement was made that “I didn't bring the trust deed”. [17] The Tribunal said “the contract is a contract with something called Hassam Investment Trust”. I asked who held the QBCC Licence specified in the contract as applicable to the contracting party. The response from the respondent was “That is Dale Hassam” [18] I then said that this question is directed to the respondent; Are you content for me to proceed on the basis that although Hassam Investments Trust is named on the contract as the contractor, it is, in fact Mr Dale Hassam who is the holder of the QBCC Licence that entered into the contract. The answer was “That is correct”. The Tribunal said “Alright”. The matter proceeded accordingly. [19] The respondent also accepted that I should proceed on the basis that both applicants were parties to the contract, although only one of them was named as such [20] The hearing then proceeded to the evidence and submissions. Hence in the reasons there is provided at the second paragraph what I set out above. [21] The Applicants oppose the Respondent’s application to stay the decision. They say and I accept that the Tribunal’s decision was delivered on 9 March 2026 and respondent has already paid the full amount ordered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, there is no practical basis for a stay of the decision. The monetary order has been satisfied, and a stay would serve no useful purpose. [22] The Applicants also opposed any reopening or renewal of the final decision. They submit and I accept that matter was heard, both parties had the opportunity to present their case, and the Tribunal made final orders. The Respondent’s current applications do not appear to raise any new evidence or substantial injustice that would justify reopening or renewing the matter. -- 4 of 5 -- 5 [23] In relation to the respondent’s request to correct the name of the respondent, the Applicants submit that Tribunal’s orders have already been complied with by payment of the full amount ordered. That submission is well made. [24] The applicants opposed any correction that would alter the substance of the Tribunal’s decision, disturb the orders already made, delay the finalisation of the matter, or affect the applicants’ rights arising from the decision. The applicants request that the respondent’s application to stay the decision be dismissed, and that no order be made reopening or renewing the final decision. Disposition and Orders [25] As I described already the respondent was content for me to proceed on the basis that although Hassam Investments Trust was named on the contract as the contractor, it was, in fact Mr Dale Hassam the respondent who was the holder of the QBCC Licence that entered into the contract and the matter proceeded accordingly. [26] It must follow that I dismiss the applications filed on 21 May 2026 and 25 May 2026 by the respondent to correct and stay the Tribunal decision of 9 March 2026 because there is no foundation for them. The respondent is correctly named and properly the party against whom the claims of the applicants succeeded. -- 5 of 5 --