Builder ordered to repay $23,342 after taking money for approvals and roofing he never supplied (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

The owners engaged the builder to build a deck at their home. There were two written contracts. The first was a Master Builders "Appointment of Principal Contractor" with an estimated project value of $8,800, describing the services as "certification and professional management. Engineer, draftsperson and certifier", with a completion date of 10 September 2024. The tribunal noted that this agreement said no subcontractors would be appointed, which it said called into question why the builder was appointed as a "principal" contractor.

The owners said they paid the builder $10,142 under that first agreement so he would obtain engineer plans, engage a building certifier, make submissions to council, pay council boundary relaxation fees and obtain building approval. They said he did none of those things. The most he did was consult an engineer, but he did not provide complete plans and did not pay for the plans.

The second contract was a Master Builders Domestic Building Contract – Level 2 for construction of the deck at a total price of $66,533.03, with practical completion due on 1 December 2024. Under that contract the owners were to supply the building materials. Separately from the building contract, the owners said they paid the builder to supply the required materials, including $13,200 for deck roofing materials. No roofing materials were delivered and no roof was built on the deck. The owners said the builder abandoned the project.

The owners withheld the practical completion payment of $16,315 and terminated the building contract on 26 September 2025. They had already been through the Queensland Building and Construction Commission dispute process, which ended on 22 July 2025 without any resolution or action by the QBCC. The builder was served with the application by email, as the tribunal had directed, and filed nothing. He did not engage in the proceeding at all, so the tribunal heard the matter on the papers without an oral hearing.

What each side wanted

The owners asked for the return of two sums: the $10,142 they paid under the first contract for the certification, plans and approval work that was never done, and the $13,200 they paid for deck roofing materials that were never supplied. They relied on the contracts, correspondence and financial records they filed. The builder did not file a response or a counter-application, put forward no case, and did not challenge any of the owners' material, so there was nothing before the tribunal contradicting their account.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal made three orders. Under section 13 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the builder must pay the owners $10,142.

Under section 77(3)(d) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), the builder must pay the owners restitution of $13,200 within 28 days of the decision. "Restitution" means giving back money the person was not entitled to keep.

Under section 77(3)(h) of the same Act, the builder must pay the owners costs of $392.40 within 28 days, being the tribunal filing fee.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The tribunal first worked out which of its powers applied to each part of the claim. A "building dispute" that it can decide under section 77 of the QBCC Act includes a domestic building dispute about domestic building work, and the tribunal was satisfied that building a deck is domestic building work, that the owners were building owners and that the builder was a building contractor. It was also satisfied the owners had completed the QBCC dispute process first, which section 77(2) requires before an application can be made.

But the definition of domestic building work leaves out "excluded building work", which covers design work by an architect, engineer or draftsperson and the preparation of plans, specifications or bills of quantity. The preparatory work in the first contract fell into that excluded category, so the tribunal's power over it came instead from its minor civil dispute powers in sections 10 to 14 of the QCAT Act, which let it order one party to pay another a stated amount up to $25,000. Because the substance of that part of the claim had been clearly set out in material served on the builder, the tribunal said no unfairness came from treating it as a minor civil dispute even though it had been filed as a domestic building dispute. On ordinary contract law, none of the agreed services were provided by the due date or at all, which the tribunal found was a total failure of consideration amounting to repudiation of the contract, entitling the owners to get back the whole $10,142.

The payment for roofing materials was treated differently. That was a contract for domestic building work, and the QBCC Act makes a domestic building contract for between $3,300 and $19,999 a "level 1 regulated contract". To have any effect, a level 1 regulated contract must be in writing and signed and dated by or on behalf of each party. There was no evidence those requirements were met, so the contract was void, meaning the builder had no legal right to the money at all. The tribunal said another way of putting it is that keeping the money would be unjust enrichment, so the $13,200 had to be returned.

On costs, the tribunal said the discretion under section 77(3)(h) is broad, and because the owners had to come to the tribunal to enforce their legal rights, it was appropriate that the builder bear the $392.40 filing fee. The tribunal decided the whole matter on the papers under section 32(2) of the QCAT Act, being satisfied the builder had been properly served and had ample opportunity to respond, and that there was no apparent reason to doubt the owners' evidence.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows two things about how the rules are applied to money paid up front. The first is that the tribunal looks closely at what kind of work the money was for. Design and certification work, plans and specifications are treated as "excluded building work", so a claim about them is handled under the tribunal's general minor civil dispute power rather than its building powers, while the deck construction and the materials for it are domestic building work. The tribunal sorted that out itself rather than turning the owners away for filing under the wrong heading.

It also shows what the written-contract rules in the QBCC Act can mean in practice. A domestic building contract between $3,300 and $19,999 must be in writing, signed and dated by both sides to have any effect. Here there was no evidence of that for the roofing materials arrangement, so the agreement was void and the builder had no right to hold the money. Where a trader takes payment and delivers nothing at all, the tribunal described that as a total failure of consideration, and the remedy was return of the full amount rather than a reduction.

The decision also shows what happens when the other side ignores the process. The builder was served by email as the tribunal directed, filed nothing, and the matter was decided on the documents alone, with the owners' figures accepted. In this kind of dispute the step most people take first is a written notice or demand to the builder that sets out exactly what was paid, what was promised and what was never delivered, and gives a deadline to refund or finish, followed by the regulator's dispute process and then a tribunal application if that does not resolve it.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a QCAT application. More decisions: QCAT cases and builders and building defects.

Source: Csurhes v Strofield t/as Toecon [2026] QCAT 478 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.