Home owner’s $21,173 building claim dismissed over unsigned contract and unproven costs (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

On or about 29 November 2021 the home owner and a landscaping business entered into what the owner said was a contract for landscaping work at his home, which he was demolishing and rebuilding. The price started at $42,000 but later exceeded $66,000. The document said to record the agreement was headed "Client Agreement", was on the landscaping business's letterhead, named the owner as owner, and was signed by the owner on 29 November 2021. It was not signed by or for the landscaper.

Work started in February 2022. By January 2023 the relationship had soured, the work was not finished, and the owner said he terminated the contract on 7 January 2023. He complained to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (the QBCC, the state building regulator). The QBCC directed the landscaper to rectify certain works. That direction was not complied with, and the QBCC then told the owner it could not assist him further.

On 14 February 2024 the owner filed an Application for Domestic Building Dispute in QCAT. The landscaper did not file a formal response. He instead sent the tribunal registry and the owner a long email putting his side, arguing the work was not defective but merely incomplete. In August 2024 the tribunal accepted that email as his response.

The landscaper did not attend the compulsory conference (a without-prejudice settlement meeting the tribunal can order), filed no statements of evidence, and did not appear at the hearing on 2 March 2026. The tribunal tried three times to reach him at the start of the hearing before continuing in his absence. The owner appeared for himself.

What each side wanted

The owner's application described his claim as one for "restitution" of $21,173.50, which included his filing fee and $15 in postage for serving the application. When he opened his case at the hearing he was in substance claiming damages for breach of contract, relying on invoices and quotes attached to his own statement of evidence. The landscaper's only answer, in his email, was that the work was incomplete rather than defective; he made no formal defence and no counter-application.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal ordered: "The Application for Domestic Building Dispute filed 14 February 2024 is dismissed."

Nothing was ordered to be paid to either side. Before dismissing the application, the tribunal had adjourned the hearing part-heard on 2 March 2026 and given detailed directions allowing the owner to amend his claim and file further witness statements by 29 May 2026, and allowing the landscaper to reply and to make any counter-application. No amended claim was filed, and the owner did not withdraw the claim either, so the matter was decided on the material that existed at the hearing date.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The first problem was proof of the amount. The owner was the only witness. Apart from invoices and quotes inside his own statement, he had no witness or expert to prove those documents were genuine, to verify how the cost of rectification was calculated, or to show the work was defective in a way that needed rectification of that cost. The tribunal pointed to an earlier appeal decision of the tribunal confirming that this kind of independent evidence is needed, and treated it as a significant barrier to proving the size of his claim.

The second problem, which the tribunal called critical, was the contract itself. The work was domestic building work because it was associated with the construction of a detached dwelling, which engaged Schedule 1B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act. Under sections 5, 7 and 14 of that schedule, a regulated contract must be in writing, dated, and signed for or on behalf of each party, and only has effect if those requirements are met. The "Client Agreement" was never signed by or for the landscaper, so the contract the owner relied on effectively did not exist and a breach of contract claim was not open to him.

The tribunal also explained a route that was potentially open. The landscaper did not hold a proper licence under that Act for this work, and section 42 means an unlicensed builder is not entitled to be paid anything beyond reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. That can let an owner claim back money paid, which is what a restitution claim is. But the owner's statement of evidence contained only an assertion of the amount he had paid, with nothing to prove the payments were actually made.

The owner said at the hearing that he wanted to reformulate his claim as restitution, and was given time and directions to do so. Because he filed no amended claim, he was left without a cause of action for the claim as originally made and made no alternative claim. For that sole reason, the tribunal said, the application had to fail and the only available outcome was dismissal.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position after a residential build or renovation, this decision shows two things about how the Queensland rules are applied. A contract for domestic building work has to meet the formal requirements in Schedule 1B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act, including being signed for each party, before it can be enforced as a contract. A document signed only by the home owner may leave a breach of contract claim with no foundation, even where the other side does not turn up to argue about it.

It also shows that a tribunal does not accept figures simply because they are unchallenged. The amount paid out needs to be proved, not just asserted, and the cost of putting defective work right is usually proved by independent evidence rather than by the owner's own bundle of quotes. Where a tradesperson was unlicensed, section 42 of that Act can support a claim to recover money paid rather than a claim for damages, but the claim still has to be framed that way and backed by evidence, and a chance to amend is of no use if it is not taken up.

In disputes like this, most people start by putting the problem to the builder or contractor in writing: a formal notice that lists each defective or unfinished item, refers to the contract and the building laws, and sets a date for the work to be fixed or the money returned, before any tribunal application is considered.

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

Source: Grech v Brett Collett t/as All About Landscaping [2026] QCAT 477 (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.