Shetty v A Team Installation & Maintenance Pty Ltd [2026] QCAT 95

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), Schedule 1B s 20

Rise Constructions Qld Pty Ltd v Bryant [2024] QCAT 581

Sullivan v Petreski [2018] QCAT 429

[1] The applicant Mr Shetty wanted to renovate his kitchen. He signed two contracts.

[2] First on 7 September 2020 he signed a contract with Comfit Kitchens ABN49114681837 to design and build cabinetry ('the manufacturing contract').

[3] Then on 25 November 2020 he signed a Master Builder's Residential Renovation Contract - Level 2 with the respondent builder ('A Team') for installation of the kitchen and supply of a benchtop amongst other things ('the installation contract').

[4] The manufacturing contract contained the following notation about the type of benchtop to be used:

Benches ...

Top 1 Brand YDL Material Stone Colour Springwhite ... Profile Aris Edge Thickness 20mm

... Supplier A-Team Installations TT3092

[6] The installation contract was signed some months later with A Team Installations & Maintenance Pty Ltd, the respondent builder. The scope of work in the installation contract was set out under Part B of the appendix, entitled Allowances for Provisional Sums. There were allowances for removal and disposal of the existing kitchen and installing the new kitchen, allowances for a stonemason, plumbing, electrical, plasterer, tiling splashback and for QBCC insurance.

[7] The allowance for a Stonemason noted the type of benchtop to be installed as Silestone 'Blanco Maple 14' and contained what was described as a Disclaimer as follows:

We recommend clients view full slabs at the respective stone manufacturers showrooms/warehouse when making your colour choice to ensure it meets your expectations. A small sample is not a complete indicator of the overall effect of the full size slab.

[8] The parties did not clearly explain why the benchtop initially chosen by Mr Shetty when signing the manufacturing contract was YDL Springwhite, but when signing the installation contract some months later was noted to be Silestone 'Blanco Maple 14', and then at installation was in fact the original type chosen, YDL Springwhite.

[9] In large part throughout the hearing there was confusion due to conflating the arrangements made between Mr Shetty and the manufacturing and installing companies as one broad brush transaction involving supply of a benchtop. It is not entirely unreasonable that Mr Shetty (and surprisingly, Mr Eggert appearing for R)[1] formed that view.

[10] An ASIC search of A Team Installations & Maintenance Pty Ltd, the builder signing the installation contract, shows it owns the business name A Team Installations & Maintenance ABN 60 160 435 914 and it has a principal place of business of Unit 5, 23 Huntington St, Clontarf, QLD 4019.

[11] The manufacturing contract was signed by Comfit Kitchens ABN 49 114 681 837, and an ASIC search of that business name discloses Jacaranda Kitchens Qld Pty Ltd is body corporate holder of that business name and the company has a principal place of business of Unit 9, 23 Huntington St, Clontarf, QLD 4019.

[12] Whilst the two companies are clearly associated, sharing a fax number and offices in close physical proximity, they are separate legal entities.

[13] From the evidence given at hearing it appears Mr Shetty attended at Comfit's showroom to discuss kitchen set out and design and at that time chose to use for his kitchen a benchtop called YDL Springwhite. The contract he signed with Comfit Kitchens mentions that benchtop. The benchtop contained organic sea shells semi-exposed at the surface.

[14] The kitchen was manufactured by Comfit Kitchens and installed by A Team by about 13 April 2021. The benchtop installed was YDL Springwhite however, not Silestone 'Blanco Maple 14' as per the installation contract. Why that occurred is addressed below.

[15] The first complaint made by Mr Shetty about the benchtop was by email some two and a half years later on 24 October 2023 when Mr Shetty complained that there were flakes falling off the benchtop. There was a problem with the shells imbedded into the benchtop. Small holes were left as small pieces of shell came away.

[16] A Team immediately contacted the manufacturer YDL who advised that the sea shells in that particular product were not covered under their warranty. They suggested a repairer be engaged, and gave a name. They suggested that only mild cleaners should be used on the benchtop going forward. A Team informed Mr Shetty what was said by YDL and offered to fund the repairer attending and doing rectification work.

[17] Mr Shetty refused the offer and made complaint to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission ('QBCC') but QBCC decided not to issue a direction to rectify defective building work because the complaint had been made out of time. There was a limited 12-month complaint window following completion of the work within which to complain for non-structural defective building work.

[18] Mr Shetty commenced the within building dispute proceedings against A Team in the Tribunal in March 2024 seeking damages of $7,768.99. In the course of the proceedings the claim increased to include the costs to rectify another issue concerning incorrect distance between gas stove top and rangehood, which increased Mr Shetty's claim to $10,500 for rectification (at hearing he rounded down the figure to $10,000 all up).

[19] Mr Shetty stated in a statement of evidence that he and his wife used only the cleaning products provided by the manufacturer of the bench, YDL Stone. He said those products did not use acidic or alkaline "bases" and he added:

In any event, it is reasonable to expect that a correctly installed and sealed benchtop can withstand mild-moderate cleaning products.

[20] He maintained the product was not fit for purpose.[2]

[21] Mr Tan, a builder, gave evidence for Mr Shetty. Mr Tan said in a statement of evidence that in his experience many customers liked the benchtop but chose a different type because there was a problem with sea shells "falling off". He said they fell out because some of the shells were softer than others and "don't hold to the stone really well." He said that was an explanation given to him by a manufacturer of a shell benchtop. He does not say that it was the same manufacturer or same benchtop the subject of dispute here. Indeed in cross-examination he said he had only ever installed one of these benchtops 20 years ago and with that one he discovered a year after installation that the shells were falling off. He said subsequently he would advise customers who were thinking of using the product about that and they would reject it.

[22] At hearing Mr Eggert for A Team said his company had sold other shell tops from different manufacturers over the years and there had never been complaints.

[23] The manufacturer's information brochure, which A Team claimed would have been supplied to Mr Shetty in accordance with usual practice at time of purchase,[3] contains this advisory to customers:

The shells in 'Spring White' product may have a chemical reaction to alkaline (sic) and acids like lemon juice and may dissolve. The shells are not covered by this warranty.

[24] Mr Shetty says he was never supplied with any material about the benchtop. Mr Shetty claimed the benchtop came with a warranty (or guarantee) under the Australian Consumer Law ('ACL') that he had to be sold the 'right product',[4] and A Team had breached that warranty.

[25] In so far as he identifies and relies in these proceedings on guarantees implied by the ACL, Mr Shetty has a problem. The matter at hand is a building dispute. The ACL is Commonwealth legislation incorporated into State law by the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld). That enabling legislation limits jurisdiction over ACL claims to minor civil dispute - consumer claims and claims concerning defective motor vehicles to a value of up to $100,000: Sullivan v Petreski [2018] QCAT 429, [8]-[9].

[26] Claims based on breach of ACL guarantees concerning a product's acceptable quality or fitness for purpose are not available to parties in building disputes: Rise Constructions Qld Pty Ltd v Bryant [2024] QCAT 581, [12].

[27] But even if the ACL guarantees were available, the matter is not straight forward. There is the complexity of Mr Shetty's dealings with two different corporate entities concerning the manufacture then installation of the kitchen.

[28] Though at hearing Mr Shetty denies there was ever more than one contract, the two contracts are in evidence and their existence refutes that claim. Indeed they were put into evidence by Mr Shetty. Mr Shetty's signature appears on both documents.

[29] Mr Eggert put to Mr Shetty that the change from Silestone 'Blanco Maple 14' to YDL Springwhite was a last minute change sought by Mr Shetty.

[30] Mr Shetty displayed a propensity not to answer questions directly at hearing. Rather he would ignore the question in large part and address his perceived opponent's broad brush obligations as a supplier of goods to take responsibility for the benchtop. Pressed to answer the specific challenge put by Mr Eggert, Mr Shetty responded:

MEMBER: Now - Mr Shetty, what do you say?‑‑‑Yeah, it was different product. The product should be suitable for the purpose what we are buying.[5]

[31] Very shortly after that however, Mr Shetty resiled from that admission saying the YDL Springwhite was always the contracted item.

[32] It seems clear based on the chronology of the two contracts, that by the time he contracted with A Team he had already chosen YDL Springwhite as the benchtop of preference during discussions with Comfit Kitchens. It is also clear that he agreed to something different in his contract with R, Silestone 'Blanco Maple 14'.

[33] I find he went back to his first preference, YDL Springwhite, by time of installation. I find that was a choice made by A.

[34] In the installation contract there was a warning to customers to make their own enquiries concerning benchtops but Mr Shetty said at hearing that he had no need to approach the manufacturer. There had been a large benchtop, apparently YDL Springwhite, at the showroom. He did not make clear which showroom, but one may reasonably assume it was the showroom of Comfit Kitchens.

[35] Mr Eggert said there were very few benchtops on display at his showrooms (not clarifying what he meant by his showrooms) but certainly nothing but a small size sample of YDL Springwhite existed.

[36] Comfit built the kitchen cabinets and drawers to kitchen specification including positioning for a benchtop, oven, cooktop and sink at their business premises. Subsequently, A Team Installations & Maintenance installed the kitchen.

[37] Whilst Mr Shetty cannot rely on the guarantee provisions of the ACL in building dispute proceedings against A Team there are warranties under Schedule 1B Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) ('QBCC Act') that are implied into building contracts. By s 20 of Schedule 1B QBCC Act the following warranties are implied as part of a regulated contract:[6]

(1) The building contractor warrants that all materials to be supplied for use in the subject work -

(a) will be good and, having regard to the relevant criteria, suitable for the purpose for which they are used; and

(b) unless otherwise stated in the contract, will be new.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to the building contractor for materials only if the materials are supplied by the responsible person for the contract.

(4) Also, despite subsection (2), subsection (1) does not apply to the building contractor for materials if -

(a) the building owner is responsible for nominating the materials for use in the subject work; and

(b) either -

(i) there are no reasonable grounds for not using the materials; or

(ii) if there are reasonable grounds for not using the materials - the building owner insists on the materials being used despite written advice to the contrary given to the building owner by the building contractor.

(5) A building owner is responsible for nominating materials for use in the subject work only if -

(a) the building owner nominates the materials specifically; and

(b) the nomination is made without any recommendation, representation, suggestion or other approach being made to the building owner by the building contractor -

(i) supporting, or approving, the use of the materials;

relevant criteria, for materials, means -

(a) generally accepted practices or standards applied in the building industry for the materials; or

(b) specifications, instructions or recommendations of manufacturers or suppliers of the materials.

responsible person, for a regulated contract, means -

(a) if the contract is a contract for carrying out the subject work - the building contractor ....

[38] Here it was the owner, Mr Shetty, who nominated use of the YDL Springwhite benchtop. He had chosen but not purchased that benchtop as preferred when engaging Comfit Kitchens to construct the cabinetry. The benchtop nominated in the installation contract was a different one, Silestone 'Blanco Maple 14'. Mr Shetty changed the agreed benchtop back to YDL Springwhite before installation.

[39] I have found that Mr Shetty was responsible for nominating YDL Springwhite as the benchtop he wanted fitted. It was a specific nomination on his part without recommendation by A Team. There were no reasonable grounds for that benchtop not to be used. It has been sold by various manufacturers, including similar type by A Team, for many years despite Mr Tan's one negative experience with a like product.

[40] As such I determine there is no warranty by A Team to be implied into the installation contract pursuant to s 20 of Schedule 1B of the QBCC Act that the benchtop would be good and suitable for purpose.

[41] Mr Shetty also claims in a statement of evidence that A Team incorrectly sealed and cleaned the benchtop. That might be within purview of the warranty implied by s 22 of Schedule 1B which provides:

1. Standard of work and exercise of care and skill

The building contractor warrants the subject work will be carried out -

(a) in an appropriate and skilful way; and

(b) with reasonable care and skill.

[42] However there is no evidence to suggest that there was any sealing or cleaning of the benchtop done by A Team. Rather the evidence suggests any sealing or cleaning was done by first Mr Shetty, who tried for some months to clean it to his satisfaction but was not satisfied with the result. Then he contacted the manufacturer, YDL, who attended his home. At hearing this exchange occurred between Mr Shetty and Mr Eggert:

MR EGGERT: Do you use harsh chemicals ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑No, we don't.

­ ­ ­ to clean that?‑‑‑There is no need use a harsh chemical.

Yes?‑‑‑And it's the kitchen.

Yes, because it will damage it. Yes?‑‑‑In fact, when - when they supplied the benchtop, YLD came - it was not clean and when I complained to you and YLD people, they came and they cleaned the benchtop, and they gave their YDL cleaner and we still we are using the same YDL cleaner.

So now you're saying they did come to visit you?‑‑‑Yep. That - immediately after installation, within two months. The benchtop was not cleaned.

MEMBER: So do I understand, Mr Shetty, you're saying someone came out ­ ­ ­?‑‑‑At - immediately I put the installation ‑ ‑ ‑

Who came out?‑‑‑From YDL because we said there is something is wrong with the benchtop and they came and cleaned, and then they gave - gave us YDL cleaner.[7]

[43] I find that the only cleaning that occurred prior to the manufacturer attending to assist Mr Shetty was done by Mr Shetty.[8] I find there is no evidence that A Team sealed the benchtop or attempted to clean it. There was no obligation to seal the benchtop under the terms of the installation contract.

[44] The claim against A Team with respect to the benchtop fails.

[45] Mr Tan said when he had inspected Mr Shetty's benchtop he had also noticed that the distance between the stove top and rangehood was less than 600 mm which distance was a mandatory minimum requirement. He measured it at 560 mm. He said that breached standard AS/NZS 5601.1:2022 Gas Installations.

[46] The plans for the kitchen created by Comfit Kitchens however show the rangehood apparently no lower than the bottom of adjacent overhead cupboards and the overhead height of cupboards noted on the cabinetry specifications (benchtop to cupboards) was 650 mm. There is nothing on the plans about height from stove top trivets to rangehood however.

[47] At hearing Mr Eggert put to Mr Tan that a gas fitter had installed the gas cooktop and signed a gas System Compliance Certificate. Mr Tan said the certifier was not certifying as to height, only that he had installed the system properly. It was the private building certifier that certified such things as height above the stove top.

[48] It is not clear whether the kitchen work required private building certification in addition to that given by the gas installer. There is no evidence about that.

[49] Generally internal or external structural changes require certification. Cosmetic non-structural changes do not. Replacing a benchtop and installing new cabinets without changes in plumbing or waterproofing would generally fall within the latter category rather than the former.

[50] Mr Shetty claimed, without evidence in support other than the comments made by Mr Tan, that a gas certifier has no interest in the height above the trivets, it is the installer of the cabinetry who is responsible for that.[9]

[51] The certificate signed by the gas installer is in evidence. At the foot of the document the installer certifies "... that the gas system and any gas work, as detailed above, complies with all relevant safety requirements." The required and necessary clearance between gas stove top and the structure above it, such as a rangehood, would surely be a relevant if not essential safety requirement.

[52] It is unclear whether the cabinetry was installed before the gas installer fitted the stove top but one notes the installer has added a note in the certificate saying "Installed cook top with isolation switch valve in cupboard." This suggests that the stove top was added after the cabinetry was already installed, not the other way around.

[53] By the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld):

(1) If a safety requirement applies to a type of gas system, a person must not install a system of that type unless the installation complies with the safety requirement.

(2) If a person installs all or part of a gas system, the person must, within the period or at the stage of installation prescribed under a regulation -

(a) give, to the person prescribed under a regulation, a certificate in the approved form about the installation and the gas system; and

(b) if a regulation prescribes a compliance plate for the installation - the compliance plate is attached in the way prescribed under the regulation.

[54] I consider the reference to safety requirements in s 734 would include any required by a standard such as AS/NZS 5601.1.2022 Gas Installation. The standard itself is not in evidence.

[55] Essentially the gas installer is required to certify that the gas appliance installed is safe to use as installed. The installer noted in the certificate that he had changed natural gas jets to LPG and adjusted the flame.

[56] I conclude that the stove top as certified complies with all necessary safety requirements.

[57] Mr Shetty has no claim against A Team concerning the stove top.

[58] Mr Shetty's claim against A Team is dismissed.

[1] Which speaks to the manufacturing company and installation company indeed having close ties.

[3] Given that Mr Eggert also agreed that YDL Springwhite was not the benchtop included in the installation contract specifications, it may be the usual practice he was speaking about was that of Comfit Kitchens.

[6] The contract between Mr Shetty and A Team was a regulated contract - sch 1B s 5 QBCC Act.

[8] Mr Shetty repeated more than once at hearing his view that the benchtop should be able to withstand mild chemical cleaning. What mild chemical cleaning amounted to in his view was not explained.