Canberra woman loses contract dispute with tradie over 'actual services provided'

A Canberra tribunal has ordered a woman to pay almost $17,000 to a plumbing company after a contract dispute.

The woman, whom Region has chosen not to name, engaged a plumbing and earthworks business for work at a Dickson property. These works were carried out between late February and early May 2024.

However, both sides would claim the contract was breached before the works were finished.

The business lodged a claim with ACAT that the woman pay $15,154.56 for work it had done. The woman made a counterclaim, arguing that she should be compensated because the business had abandoned the contract and she had incurred costs to finish the work.

In a recent ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) decision, Senior Member Jennifer Francis found the plumbing company was entitled to payment and raised an issue with how the contract ended.

Under a contract signed in February 2024, the payment schedule for the works included a 25 per cent payment when a pre-determined part of the work was finished. This was sent to the woman around 3 May 2024.

The woman disputed that the business had done the work covered by the May invoice, which would have had her pay more than the payment schedule required.

“As inconsistent with the terms of the contract, the applicant was not, at this point in the project, entitled to a progress payment of this amount,” Ms Francis said.

“The issue that then arises is whether submission of the 3 May 2024 invoice is, by its demand in excess of that for which the contract provided, and the effect that the [woman] says that it (together with the other circumstances) had on her, evidence that the applicant no longer wished to be bound by the contract.”

Ultimately, she found that it was “not relevant”. It was more than the 25 per cent planned under the payment schedule because the business was entitled to payment for work done, and the debt came from the “actual services provided”.

Ms Francis also found “reasonably strong evidence” that the business planned to finalise the rest of the work, while the woman didn’t.

“The [woman] repudiated the contract at least on 11 May, following the expiration of seven days after the applicant demanded payment of the 3 May 2024 invoice,” she said.

“The [woman’s] repudiation of the contract extinguishes any right she may have had against the applicant for damages for breach of contract. Accordingly, I dismiss the [woman’s] counterclaim.”

Part of the dispute focused on the timeframe taken for the work that was completed, with the woman claiming the business had “failed to exercise reasonable care and skill because he was tardy” in doing what she termed “a simple job”.

However, Ms Francis noted there was “no evidence of an expressed time within which the services were required to be delivered”, and that the business raised several factors that had stopped it from finishing the work.

The woman had contacted the plumbing business about how long the works were taking, such as in an email from 30 March where she said she was “Distressed by your delaying this build”.

In response, the business gave a “detailed response” on 2 April 2024, where he explained why things were taking longer than expected due to factors outside his control.

Also, in a later email, the business claimed the woman had not allowed access to the worksite for three days, among other delays that had slowed the works.

Ultimately, Ms Francis said she was “not persuaded” the plumbing business had “failed to carry out the required earthworks including for tie in of water and sewer in a timely manner”.

“There is no relevant breach of contract. The [woman] has no right to any compensation because of the applicant’s alleged tardiness,” she said.

Ultimately, the tribunal has ordered the woman to pay the plumbing business $16,656.44 by a set date.