Home owners ordered to pay builder $14,073.73 for a bathroom renovation after defect claims failed (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

In October 2022 a building company, Homefront Building and Maintenance Pty Ltd, sent a quote to the property agent acting for the owners of a house. The quote set out a detailed scope of work for a main bathroom and a toilet, including stripping out the old bathroom, replacing wall linings, waterproofing to Australian standards, tiling, a new bath and hob, a vanity, tapware, a shower screen, new door jambs and architraves, painting and rubbish removal. The total quoted price was $18,450. The owners accepted the quote by email two days later, and that acceptance was passed on to the builder the same day. There was no single signed contract document.

Three items in the quote were never carried out: the custom made shower screen, the vanity mixer and mirror, and the bath and shower tapware. The contract price was also reduced for some plumbing work and for the floor and wall tiling. The builder's final invoice, dated 28 November 2022, came to $14,073.73 and reflected that reduced scope. Apart from the owners' complaints about quality, it was not in dispute that the rest of the work was done.

The builder's director, who is also the company's licensed nominee, gave evidence that he qualified as a carpenter in 2006, later obtained a builder's licence, inspects each site before quoting, and did all of the work himself except the plumbing, tiling and electrical trades, which were done by qualified subcontractors.

One of the owners gave evidence that she was not satisfied the tradespeople were properly qualified, that there were defects, and that the finished product was a "bargain basement bathroom" that was not worth what was charged. The owners relied on a Scott Schedule (a table listing each alleged defect and what the person says it would cost) that they prepared themselves, along with photographs and screenshots of product prices. They accepted that they could have obtained a building report for the hearing but chose not to, saying they were worried a local builder's report would not be unbiased and that they preferred the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) to look at the defects. The QBCC had earlier closed its dispute process without issuing a direction to rectify or complete.

What each side wanted

The builder asked for the full amount of its final invoice of $14,073.73, interest as the Tribunal saw fit, and costs of $436.10 made up of the filing fee and a service fee. The owners counter-applied, asking the Tribunal to allow the builder only an amount that reflected "what the bathroom is actually worth", to let them pursue a QBCC investigation and insurance once the invoice was paid, and to hold the builder accountable for what they said was deliberately false information about whether the QBCC had inspected the work or disciplined him. They also argued the quote was not a contract and that the builder had failed to enter into a properly regulated building contract.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal ordered that, within 30 days of the date of the order, the two owners pay into the building company's nominated bank account $14,073.73 for the claim and $436.10 for costs. The counter-application was dismissed.

The costs figure was made up of the $379.50 filing fee on the originating application and $56.60 in service fees. The claim for interest was refused.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The first question was whether there was a contract at all. Under schedule 1B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), a job of domestic building work under $20,000 is a "level 1 regulated contract", and such a contract must be in writing, dated and signed by the parties. If those requirements are not met the contract has no effect, and neither side can enforce it. There was no single signed document here, but section 14 of the Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001 (Qld) allows a signature requirement to be met by an electronic communication where the method used identifies the person and shows their intention, the method was reliable enough in the circumstances, and the other side consented to it. The Tribunal found the emailed and dated quote identified the builder and its intention to contract, the owners' acceptance email identified them and their intention to accept, both emails were reliable for that purpose, and each side had consented to signature being met that way. So a valid level 1 regulated contract existed, and the statutory warranties in schedule 1B were implied into it.

The Tribunal also observed that schedule 1B lists a number of things a contract must contain, but that failing to include everything required by sections 13 or 14 of schedule 1B does not attract a penalty and does not make the contract void.

On the quality of the work, the owners carried the burden of proving their allegations and did not do so. They did not claim any building qualifications or experience, and their Scott Schedule was treated as, at best, their own opinions and estimates. The photographs were said to be of no particular evidentiary value in themselves, and the price screenshots did not show that anything installed was defective. Several specific complaints had no supporting evidence: there was no evidence of the missing cross stud said to prevent the mirror being hung, no cogent evidence of bowing walls preventing the shower screen being fitted, and no objective evidence about the paintwork. The shower screen had been removed from the scope and was not charged for. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the owners had not shown the work was defective, and that the work was done in an appropriate and skilful way with due care and skill. It said it would not readily go behind a bargain the parties entered willingly in the absence of fraud, and that if the owners wanted particular quality materials and fittings they could have specified that in the contract before it was made.

On the allegation of misleading evidence, the Tribunal accepted that the QBCC had decided not to issue a direction to rectify or complete, noted some inconsistency between the QBCC's communications to each side, and found no evidence of any successful QBCC prosecution and no disciplinary record on the public licensing register. It was not satisfied any deliberately false information had been given. Interest was refused because the claim was for recovery of a debt rather than damages: section 77(3)(c) of the QBCC Act lets the Tribunal award damages and interest on damages, and without a contractual right to interest there was no entitlement. Costs were allowed because, in a building dispute, the Tribunal has a discretion on costs, the builder had been entirely successful, and the non-payment left it with no option but to bring the proceeding.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how QCAT treats two things that often come up in small renovation disputes. The first is the form of the contract. For domestic building work under $20,000 the Act requires a written, dated and signed contract, and if that is missing the contract can have no effect at all. Here the quote emailed out and the acceptance emailed back were enough to satisfy the signature requirement under the Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act, so a string of emails can form a binding regulated contract even with no signed paperwork. The decision also shows that leaving some required contract terms out does not, by itself, void the contract or excuse payment.

The second is evidence. Saying work is defective or overpriced is not the same as proving it. A homeowner-prepared Scott Schedule, photographs and screenshots of what fittings cost elsewhere were all given no weight because the people preparing them had no building qualifications. Where quality or value of building work is in issue, tribunals look for independent expert evidence, and the absence of it was decisive here. The decision also shows that quality is largely fixed by what the contract specifies: a complaint that the fittings were cheaper than hoped went nowhere when nothing in the contract required better. A separate point for anyone claiming interest is that interest on a plain unpaid invoice generally needs a term in the contract allowing it.

Where a building invoice is unpaid or work is said to be defective, the step most people take first is a written notice or demand to the other side that sets out the contract, the amount or the items complained about, and a deadline to respond, before any tribunal application is filed.

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

Source: Homefront Building & Maintenance Pty Ltd v Petkovic [2026] QCAT 475 (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.