Plumber without builder’s licence ordered to repay $8,000 for steel beam job that never went ahead (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

In early 2024 the owners of a home in Pimpama wanted to remove a wall between their living and dining rooms and replace an existing timber beam with a structural steel beam. A structural engineer had already prepared plans. In March 2024 they engaged the respondent, who visited the property with the engineer. He issued a quote on Plaza Plumbing letterhead for $14,900 including GST. The quote covered supply and installation of the beam and posts, propping the roof, bolting, connecting the beam to the roof structure, adapting floor joists, and certification.

By text message, the respondent proposed that the owners pay $8,000 against an invoice "on the books" so the steel could be ordered. He offered a "cash discount" on the balance, leaving $5,500 in cash to pay on completion. The owners agreed. They paid the $8,000 on 22 May 2024 into the bank account of Plaza Plumbing. The quote was never signed and there was no written contract.

In June 2024 the parties disagreed about the height at which the beam would sit. The owners asked for the job to be put on hold, and the respondent replied that this was fine as no work had been done on the steelwork yet. At a site meeting in July 2024 they agreed to raise the beam into the roof space. That needed a roof truss moved and a revised design and price, but no revised quote was ever provided. The owners asked for their money back, and on 4 August 2024 the respondent wrote that he would proceed with cancelling the job. No beam was delivered and no work was done at the property.

The respondent held only a QBCC licence for plumbing and drainage. That licence did not cover structural building work. He accepted that the QBCC had fined him over this matter and that he had not contested the fine. Before the hearing, the company connected to the business, Plaza Plumbing Pty Ltd, had a restructuring practitioner appointed under the Corporations Act.

What each side wanted

The owners asked for the return of their $8,000, about $500 interest and their filing fee. They had earlier claimed for mould remediation and floor damage, but they dropped those claims. By the end, the respondent accepted that the $8,000 was repayable. However, he argued three things. First, the money should be repaid by Plaza Plumbing Pty Ltd, not by him personally. Second, $1,375 should be deducted for a non-refundable deposit paid to a steel fabricator, Ashmore Welding Pty Ltd. Third, any amount should be paid in instalments over 12 months. He did not press his own counter-application (a claim made back against the applicants) for $3,075.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the owners $8,879.50 by 30 October 2026. That sum is made up of the $8,000 claimed, $500 interest and the $379.50 filing fee.

The respondent's counter-application was dismissed. The tribunal refused his request to pay in instalments and refused to deduct the $1,375 fabricator deposit.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The tribunal found that removing a load-bearing wall and installing a steel beam and posts is "building work" under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (the QBCC Act). Section 42(1) says a person must not carry out, or undertake to carry out, building work without a contractor's licence of the right class. The respondent argued that he had only quoted, liaised and ordered steel, and that a licensed builder would do the installation. The tribunal rejected this. It said the prohibition applies once someone undertakes (promises) to do the work, whether or not any work is ever done. His quote was a promise to supply and install the beam for a single price. A person who contracts to have building work done and plans to subcontract it to a licensed tradesperson has still undertaken to carry it out. Under s 42(3), an unlicensed person is not entitled to be paid for that work, so the owners could recover their money. The tribunal also noted that, under schedule 1B of the Act, a domestic building contract of this size had to be in writing and signed. It also found that the $8,000 was far above the 10% maximum deposit allowed.

On who had to pay, the tribunal accepted that a company is a separate legal person. But it found that the owners dealt only with the respondent. He set the price, proposed the payment structure (including the cash component), arranged the steel order and directed where the money went. The documents only said "Plaza Plumbing" and never identified a company by its full name, and no business name "Plaza Plumbing" was registered. The respondent had earlier described Plaza Plumbing as a business he and his wife had. Relying on an earlier appeal decision, the tribunal said money paid to an unlicensed person can be recovered from the person it was paid to. It found the $8,000 was paid to the respondent, at his direction, for work he had undertaken. The company was not a party and, because of its restructuring, there is a moratorium (a legal pause) on court or tribunal proceedings against it. The tribunal therefore did not add it as a party.

The tribunal accepted that the $1,375 fabricator deposit had been paid and not refunded, but would not deduct it. Section 42(4) only lets an unlicensed person recover actual costs of materials and labour for building work that was carried out. No work was done and no materials were supplied. The owners were not party to the order and were never told about a non-refundable deposit. The respondent had told them no work had been done on the steelwork. A beam made to the June order would also not have suited the revised design. The tribunal also found the respondent less believable because he denied the cash arrangement even though his own text message showed it.

The tribunal refused instalments because there was no evidence the respondent could not pay, and he had held the money for more than two years. It awarded the $500 interest the owners asked for, noting it was well below what interest at 4.35% would have been. It ordered him to repay the filing fee because the owners had been wholly successful and had to bring the case to get back money he later conceded was owed. The tribunal declined to decide the owners' allegation of fraud, saying such a serious claim needs strong proof and the licensing finding made it unnecessary.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how strictly the tribunal applies the Queensland licensing rule. A person who promises to do building work without the right licence may not be entitled to keep money paid for it, even if no work was ever done. The decision also shows that an unlicensed person cannot easily deduct costs such as supplier deposits for work that never happened. Section 42(4) is read narrowly, and the person wanting to keep money must prove it falls within that exception.

The case also shows that the name on an invoice does not always settle who must repay. The tribunal looked at who the owner actually dealt with, who set the price, who directed the payment, and whether a company was ever clearly identified. The applicants were also told they had to choose who they were claiming against and stick with that choice. The decision notes that the owners had first gone through the QBCC's dispute resolution process, which the Act requires before a domestic building dispute can be brought to the tribunal.

In disputes like this, people usually start by sending a written demand setting out what was paid and asking for its return. If that does not resolve the matter, the next step is usually an application, which for a Queensland domestic building dispute follows the QBCC's dispute resolution process.

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

Source: James v Rezo [2026] QCAT 461 (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.