Humphrey v Rogan [2026] QCAT 77

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 42, s 77; Sch 1B s 7(1)(a), s 7(2), s 14(2), s 14(10); Sch 2

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), reg 45

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 48

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

[1] The applicant held an owner-builder licence for a house renovation. He first came into contact with the respondent in February 2023 when he was seeking quotes for a concrete slab. Unbeknown to the applicant, the respondent was not a licensed builder.

[2] They communicated via the Facebook messenger app and met in person on 11 February 2023. On 20 February 2023, the respondent provided a quote via Facebook messenger. The quote was issued by 'Pour & Polished Concreting' which appears to be the business name used by the respondent. The work was described as 'Under house slab. Placement and mechanical polished concrete floor'. The total amount was $66,715 which was itemised as follows:

(i) Slab preparation including all earthworks including vac truck for piers around sewer. Plain concrete mix 32/20/80 $51,040

(ii) Upgrade to decorative mix. For example Diamantina style mix. $9,500

(iii) Full aggregate mechanical polished concrete finish. Hyperdioor method with Worx plus chemicals and guard. Square metre rate $110.

[3] The applicant accepted the quote on 20 February 2023 and paid the $5,500 deposit on 24 February 2023.

[4] The parties did not sign a contract. Further invoices were issued by the respondent and paid by the applicant to the bank account listed on the invoices. The applicant has produced the invoices and evidence of payment. The total amount paid was $66,715.

[5] The respondent completed the concrete slab around 15 April 2023. The applicant makes no complaint about that part of the work. On 9 June 2023, the respondent returned to the property to cut the concrete surface in preparation for polishing once the rest of the renovation was finished. The respondent issued an invoice that day for $14,520 for 'Completion of mechanical polished floor at [property address]. All tools, machinery, chemicals and labour supplied.'

[6] The respondent completed the concrete polish on 25 January 2024 and the applicant moved furniture into the property on 27 and 28 January 2024.

[7] On 29 January 2024, the applicant contacted the respondent about problems with the work including numerous cracks in the polished concrete floor as well as areas that were not polished correctly. The applicant has provided the Tribunal with colour photographs of quite substantial cracking with noticeable gaps and what appears to be uneven finish in multiple locations.

[8] The applicant made several attempts to contact the respondent via telephone, text message and Facebook messenger to arrange for the cracks and inconsistent polish to be rectified, however his efforts were not successful. The applicant's evidence about this is corroborated by screenshots of text messages that he provided the Tribunal.

[9] The applicant made a complaint to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission ('QBCC') in April 2024. The QBCC did not resolve the complaint and closed the matter on 24 May 2024. However, the process revealed that the respondent did not hold a building licence.

[10] In June 2024, the applicant made an application to the Tribunal seeking $14,520 from the respondent for rectification of the defective work, plus the filing fee. This amount appears to be based on the amount charged by the respondent for the 'mechanical polished floor'.

[11] On 6 May 2025, the applicant obtained a quote from another contractor of $7,150 to rectify the defects.

[12] On 7 April 2024, this matter was listed for a mediation on 23 April 2024. The respondent did not attend.

[13] On 26 May 2025 the applicant filed an affidavit of service that he had sworn on 16 June 2024, stating that on 10 June 2024 a copy of the application had been emailed to the respondent.

[14] On 27 August 2025 the applicant filed an affidavit of service stating that a copy of the application had been served on the respondent by prepaid post to his last known address. The affidavit enclosed a receipt for an Australia Post Express Post Prepaid envelope with tracking. However, it did not contain details such as the address of the respondent.

[15] On 23 September 2025, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file an affidavit of service or other evidence that a copy of the application had been served on the respondent by prepaid post to the respondent's last known residential or business address, and that the applicant identify that address.

Subject to compliance by Chris Humphrey with direction 1 here in, Steven Rogan must file in the Tribunal (2) copies and give to Chris Humphrey one (1) copy of a response and/or counter-application (form 36), by: 21 October 2025.

If without reasonable excuse Stephen Rogan does not comply with direction 2 herein, Chris Humphrey may be entitled to a final decision in the proceeding.

[17] On 1 October 2025, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal that indicated that a copy of the application had been sent by pre-paid post to the respondent's last known address, and it attached a screenshot of the tracking information showing delivery on 27 August 2025. The email included the address which was the address that appeared on the quote and invoices.

[18] On 4 November 2025 the Tribunal made further directions including that:

1. Stephen Rogan must file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to Chris Humphrey one (1) copy of a response to the application by: 18 November 2025.

1. If Stephen Rogan does not comply with Direction 2 herein, Chris Humphrey will be entitled to a final decision.

[19] To date, the respondent has not complied with any of the Tribunal's directions or engaged in this proceeding in any way.

[20] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide building disputes, and order various remedies, under s 77 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) ('QBCC Act'). A building dispute includes a domestic building dispute.[1] A domestic building dispute includes a dispute between a building owner and building contractor relating to the performance of reviewable domestic work.[2]

[21] I am satisfied that the applicant is a building owner, and the respondent is a building contractor, according to the definitions in the QBCC Act.[3] Reviewable domestic work includes the renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of a home[4] so I am satisfied that the work is reviewable domestic work.

[22] A person involved in a building dispute may apply to the Tribunal to decide the dispute provided the person has complied with a process established by the QBCC to attempt to resolve the dispute.[5] I am satisfied that the applicant has complied with that process, which concluded on 24 May 2024.

[23] I am satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute.

[24] Under s 48 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ('QCAT Act'), if the Tribunal considers that a party to a proceeding is acting in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party to the proceeding, including by not complying with the Act or an enabling Act, the Tribunal may make its final decision in the proceeding in the applicant's favour.

[25] In the exercise of this power, the Tribunal must have regard to:

(a) the extent to which the party causing the disadvantage is familiar with the Tribunal's practices and procedures;

(b) the capacity of that party to understand, and act on, the Tribunal's orders and directions; and

(c) whether the party causing the disadvantage is acting deliberately.

[26] I am satisfied that the respondent's failure to engage in this proceeding is unnecessarily disadvantaging the applicant by delaying the resolution of their application.

[27] The evidence about the matters to which the Tribunal must have regard is limited. I am unable to form a view about the extent to which the respondent is familiar with the Tribunal's practices and procedures. The respondent has the ability to conduct a business, issue quotes and invoices and perform work. He engaged with the QBCC enquiry. The Tribunal's orders and directions were expressed in plain English. A text message the applicant sent him foreshadowed an application to QCAT. A copy of the application was delivered to his last known address. I am not satisfied that he lacks the capacity to understand, and act on, the Tribunal's orders and directions. In the absence of an explanation to the contrary, I am satisfied that the respondent's failure to engage in this proceeding is deliberate.

[28] Having regard to the matters in s 48 of the QCAT Act, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make a final decision in the applicant's favour.

[29] The QBCC Act provides that a domestic building contract for an amount equal to or more than $20,000 is a level 2 regulated contract.[6] As the contract was for $66,715, it is classified as a level 2 regulated contract. A level 2 regulated contract, relevantly, must be in writing, dated and signed by or on behalf of each of the parties, and only has effect if these requirements are complied with.[7] These requirements were not complied with in this case. Therefore, the agreement between the parties has no effect.

[30] Section 42 of the QBCC Act provides that a person must not carry out building work unless the person holds a contractor's licence of the appropriate class, and a person who carries out building work in contravention of that prohibition is not entitled to any monetary or other consideration for doing so.[8]

[31] Section 42 expressly states that it does not prohibit a person from claiming reasonable remuneration for carrying out building work as long as it meets certain criteria.[9]

[32] The applicant paid the respondent a total of $66,715 for work that he did without having a licence. He has not made a claim for reasonable remuneration with respect to any of it. The component of the work that is in issue is the finishing of the concrete, for which he was paid $14,520. He has known since 2024 that his entitlement to keep the payment for this work was in issue, although the exact issue was the quality of the work rather than the fact that he was unlicensed. Still, he has had ample opportunity to respond to the application and to make a claim for reasonable remuneration in accordance with s 42 of the QBCC Act. He has not done so. I find that he was not entitled to that amount. The respondent is ordered to return it to the applicant by way of restitution under s 77(3)(d) of the QBCC Act.

[33] The application does not relate to balance of the money that was paid. The respondent has not been put on notice that his entitlement to that amount is in issue. In those circumstances, I think it would lack procedural fairness to order him to return that amount.

[34] The Tribunal may order costs under s 77(3)(h) of the QBCC Act. The discretion is a broad one. The applicant has asked that the respondent pay him the cost of the filing fee. I am satisfied that this cost was reasonably incurred by the applicant in his efforts to pursue his legal entitlements because the respondent had refused to fix the defects that the applicant had brought to his attention. However, I have ordered the respondent to repay the full amount that he was paid for the mechanical polished floor, which far exceeds the costs that the applicant was quoted to rectify the defects. In those circumstances, it would not be just to order the respondent to pay an additional amount. I decline to make a cost order.

[1] QBCC Act sch 2 (definition of 'domestic building dispute').

[2] Ibid (definition of 'reviewable domestic work').

[3] Ibid (definition of 'building contractor' and 'building owner').

[6] QBCC Act sch 1B ss 1 (definition of 'regulated amount'), 7(1)(a), 7(2); Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld) reg 45.