Kept the fence deposit, could not prove the costs: QCAT orders a $600 refund
The accepted quote showed a start date but no non-refund term. Without itemized costs, the contractor could not justify keeping the deposit.
Loading articles…
Blog category
Blog category
Case Reports
Reported verdicts, settlements, signed judgments, and arguments from Legal Arena cases.
Most recent articles
A café launch without its mural: Court orders the full $600 deposit returned
An access and scheduling dispute gave the artist an argument, but no usable work or documented deductions justified keeping the advance.
No wardrobe doors, but only €120 back: Court lets workshop keep €600 for prep
A change in scope and preparatory work justified most of the retention. The separate storage charge failed for lack of supporting records.
A missed kitchen start costs €900: Why the written date mattered in court
The start date was tied to an electrician’s schedule. The customer recovered the deposit, but did not win the full additional expense claimed.
Unfinished shelves, an undocumented wall problem: Court orders €180 back
The installer’s oral explanation could not justify keeping the advance. A separate €40 removal claim also failed for lack of proof.
Cancelled the product shoot? Court still orders payment of the €300 booking deposit
A written quote and acceptance supported the photographer’s claim. The separate €18 registered-letter expense was not awarded.
Balcony screen never installed: Customer wins back €320, but not the extras
Conditional timing and a proposed installation slot did not justify keeping the advance. The court refused the separate €40 temporary-screen expense.
Three shelves promised, one installed: Customer wins £120 of a £180 advance
Bristol’s court accepted incomplete and defective work, but access issues and uncertain material costs kept the refund below the full amount.
Paid for a move-out clean, found dirt: Court awards €120 instead of a full refund
Visible dirt supported the complaint. Uncertainty over the agreed tasks stopped the customer recovering the entire €180 cleaning bill.
A website that could not be used: Court orders €450 back from a €600 deposit
The developer could not justify keeping the full advance. Partial work and late client inputs also stood in the way of a complete refund.
An unfinished bookshelf and a cancelled order: Customer wins back the full €480
The workshop raised cancellation as its defense, but produced no itemized costs or specific refund terms to outweigh the customer’s documents.
No bookcase, no new deadline: Court orders ARS 180,000 returned
The maker blamed design changes. The Rosario court found no agreed replacement deadline or basis to keep the advance after prolonged non-delivery.