Unlicensed tiler ordered to pay home owners $29,731.20 over defective bathroom work (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

In February 2022 the owners of a Childers property found an advertisement for a tiling business in a local newspaper and also had recommendations from other tradespeople. The tiler visited the property, discussed what the owners wanted, showed examples of his past work, showed caulking and grout samples, and worked out how many tiles the owners should order. On 1 March 2022 a quote was emailed to them covering two coats of waterproofing "as per regs", a concrete screed laid to the required fall, wall and floor tiling in the bathroom and a kitchen splashback. The owners supplied the tiles and other materials, the tiler did the work, and the owners paid him $4,023. The work finished in August 2022.

The owners said the work was defective. They complained to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC), which inspected and issued a Direction to Rectify to the tiler in April 2023. In June 2023 the QBCC closed the file, saying the tiler had not been given reasonable access during work hours to do the rectification work and that it was not fair to take action against a contractor in that situation. The owners sent the tiler a letter of demand in July 2023 and applied to QCAT in August 2023. They then demolished all of the work and had the bathroom re-waterproofed and re-tiled.

The tribunal found there was an agreement, partly in the written quote and partly inferred from what the parties did, for a single price of $4,023. Because that price was above the "regulated amount" of $3,300, the agreement was a level 1 regulated contract under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991. A regulated contract must be written, dated and signed by both sides. Those formalities were not met, so the agreement had no effect and neither side could sue on it. The price also meant the tiler had to hold a licence, and he did not.

On the defects, the tribunal accepted the evidence of the QBCC inspector and of the licensed builder who did the rectification work. It found the tiler did not achieve the 90 per cent adhesive coverage the tiling standard treats as a minimum in wet areas, and spot-fixed a number of grey wall tiles, some of which could be lifted off by hand. It also found one feature tile sat outside the allowable tolerance and the tiles beside the window deviated from plane beyond tolerance. The owners' waterproofing complaint failed: their own expert had measured the membrane against the floor requirement of 1.0 mm when the wall requirement was 0.65 mm, and a flood test he carried out found no leaks.

What each side wanted

The owners asked for the $4,023 they had paid back on the basis that the tiler was unlicensed, $21,820 for rectification work including painting, $2,632.93 for a share of tiles, grout and sealant that were demolished, $28,241.35 in lost rent over two periods, $1,411.68 in travel costs to inspect the rectification work, and costs including a $379.50 filing fee, $56.60 for service and $3,630 for their expert. The tiler, who was legally represented, argued the owners knew he was unlicensed and were happy to go ahead, and said he should at least be able to keep an amount reflecting the cost of the materials he supplied. He did not file a counter-application. His expert argued the adhesive coverage was not proven, that the tiling standard was only a recommendation, that the tile deviations were within tolerance, and that there was no requirement to grade the bathroom floor to the floor waste outside the shower.

What the tribunal decided

QCAT ordered the tiler to pay the owners $29,731.20 within 28 days of the decision, made up of $4,023.00 in restitution and $25,708.20 as damages for negligence.

Costs were left open. The owners were given until 4:00 pm on 27 October 2026 to file and serve any further submissions on costs, no longer than eight pages. The tiler had until 4:00 pm on 10 November 2026 to reply, also no longer than eight pages. The owners then had until 4:00 pm on 24 November 2026 for any submissions strictly in reply, no longer than five pages. Costs will be decided on the papers, without an oral hearing, after 24 November 2026.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The money paid came back under section 42 of the QBCC Act. A person must not carry out building work without the right contractor's licence, and section 42(3) says an unlicensed person is not entitled to any payment for doing so. Section 42(4) gives a narrow exception: the unlicensed worker may claim "reasonable remuneration" limited to what they actually paid for materials and labour, with nothing for their own labour, no profit and no costs that were not reasonably incurred. The tribunal held the tiler had to bring a counter-application to claim that, and he had not. Even if it had looked at the claim informally, there was no reliable evidence of the quantities of materials used or what he paid for them, so he could not discharge the burden of proof. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the owners knew he was unlicensed: he could not point to any document supporting that, the owners' evidence that he never told them was not challenged in cross-examination, and the tribunal thought his recollection was poor.

Because the contract had no effect, the owners could not sue on it or rely on the statutory warranties in schedule 1B of the Act. That left a claim in negligence, which required a duty of care, a breach, and loss caused by the breach. All of the loss here was "pure economic loss", meaning money lost without any injury to a person or to other property, and the general rule is that such loss is not recoverable in negligence. Working through the High Court's decision in Mallonland, the tribunal held a duty can still arise where the defendant has assumed responsibility, that is, has undertaken expressly or by implication to take on a job for someone and so accepted that they would take reasonable care doing it.

The tribunal found an assumption of responsibility here: the tiler ran a tiling business for reward, advertised publicly as a tiler, made statements about the work when quoting, promised waterproofing "as per regs", and the owners did not know he was unlicensed. It held that a contract being of no effect for want of the regulated-contract formalities does not by itself defeat a duty of care, and neither does the mere fact that the contractor was unlicensed. It noted it would be different if the owners had known of the formalities and chosen to ignore them, or had known the contractor was unlicensed, as either could point against an assumption of responsibility. On breach, the tribunal treated the tiling standard as a guide to how a reasonably competent tiler would work, and found the failure to reach 90 per cent coverage, the spot-fixing, and tiles that came off by hand showed a failure to exercise reasonable care and skill. It also found a reasonably prudent tiler would not have tiled straight onto a substrate that was not straight without telling the owners.

The published text available here stops part way through the floor-fall and water-stop issue, so the tribunal's reasoning on the remaining items, how it arrived at the $25,708.20 and how it dealt with the question of failure to mitigate are not set out in the part available.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position after paying a tradesperson for bathroom, tiling or waterproofing work, this decision shows two separate things can be at stake. The first is the licence. Where Queensland law requires the work to be licensed and the person doing it was not, the Act says they are not entitled to be paid, and the narrow exception for materials is theirs to prove with real figures, not estimates. The second is the paperwork. Once the price goes above the regulated amount, the law expects a written, dated and signed contract; if that is missing the agreement has no effect, so no one can sue on it and the statutory warranties are not available either.

The decision also shows why a negligence claim is not automatic. Money-only loss from defective work is not normally recoverable in negligence, and the owners here succeeded because the tribunal found the tiler had taken on the job in a way that carried an acceptance of responsibility to do it with reasonable care, and because they did not know he was unlicensed. It also shows how much the evidence matters. The waterproofing claim failed because the owners' expert measured the membrane against the wrong figure in the product data sheet and did not report the flood test he had performed, while the tiling claim succeeded largely on photographs taken during demolition and on the builder who did the rectification work being found a credible witness.

In disputes like this, most people start by putting the complaint in writing to the tradesperson: a defects notice that lists each item, says what standard or specification it falls short of, and gives a reasonable period to come and fix it. If the work is not put right, the next steps are usually a complaint to the QBCC and then a tribunal application, and keeping the access and correspondence records matters, because in this case the regulator closed its file on the view that access to rectify had not been given.

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

Source: Rex v Barry Martin t/as Barry's Tiling (No 2) [2026] QCAT 476 (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.