QCAT Orders Return of $600 Fence Deposit After Contractor Fails to Prove Costs

Elise Marlow sought repayment of a $600 deposit paid for a fence job booked to begin on a Monday morning. Gavin Rooke resisted the claim, saying rain delayed the work, he had allocated time to the job, and Elise cancelled before a replacement date could be arranged.

The central question was not whether a booking existed. It was whether Gavin had a contractual and evidentiary basis to retain the deposit after the job did not proceed.

“Deposit return turns on whether deductions were justified.”

• Claim sought: repayment of $600.
• Forum: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Brisbane.
• Defence position: weather delayed performance and the deposit covered time and costs.

The record established that the parties had a confirmed booking and that the appointment was set for Monday morning. It also recorded Gavin’s account that weather delayed the start and that Elise cancelled before a new date was offered.

But the record did not contain receipts for incurred costs, proof of material purchases, witness support, or a documented calculation showing how much of the $600 was said to be lost. The accepted quote was treated as important because it showed the deposit and start date, yet no visible non-refund term was identified.

“The quote shows a $600 deposit and a Monday start date, but it does not show a non-refundable term or proof of the specific loss now claimed.”

• Supported points: a $600 deposit, a booked Monday start, and a weather-related delay.
• Missing proof: receipts, invoices, material-purchase records, and itemized deductions.
• Written-term issue: no visible non-refundable deposit clause was established.

Elise’s advocate argued that the deposit could not be retained on a bare assertion that money had been spent. The case for repayment emphasized the absence of a clear non-refund term and the lack of itemized, actual-cost support for the withholding.

Nik, appearing for Gavin, argued that rain made the site unsafe, that Gavin had attempted to reschedule, and that Elise chose to cancel despite time having been allocated and materials having been bought. Nik later proposed returning half the deposit.

Nik argued that Elise “declined and decided to cancel even though materials were bought and time was allocated for the job.”

• Elise’s position: the written quote did not authorize blanket retention.
• Nik’s position: the cancellation followed a weather delay and caused loss of time and materials.
• Settlement position advanced by Nik: a half-refund proposal without a documented cost basis.

The decisive strategy was the focus on proof rather than general fairness. Elise’s side repeatedly returned to the need for itemization and actual-cost support tied to the money retained.

That approach matched the tribunal’s concern: even if weather delayed the work and even if a cancellation caused some loss, Gavin had not produced records showing a proven offset against the $600 deposit.

“The question is not whether time was set aside in the abstract; it is whether the amount kept is justified by proof.”

• Keep the issue on documented deductions, not abstract inconvenience.
• Use the quote to test whether a non-refund term exists.
• Require a calculation connecting each claimed cost to the retained deposit.

The outcome awarded Elise full relief: repayment of the $600 deposit. The decision found that the accepted quote showed the deposit and booked start date but did not show a visible non-refund term.

The ruling also found that Gavin had not produced itemized, actual-cost proof sufficient to justify retaining the money. Although the record left open the possibility that a limited offset might have existed, none was proven on the material presented.

“On this record, the safer and fairer result is full return of the withheld deposit.”

• Disposition: full relief for Elise Marlow.
• Amount claimed: AUD $600.
• Amount awarded: AUD $600.
• Reason: no visible non-refund term and no proven, itemized offset.

Nik kept Gavin’s case directed to the relevant factual themes: the confirmed booking, weather delay, attempted rescheduling, allocated time, and claimed material costs. The tribunal feedback recognized that the response stayed focused on whether the withholding was justified.

However, Nik’s advocacy did not convert those themes into evidence of a specific loss. The proposed half-refund was not supported by receipts, invoices, or a concrete calculation, leaving the defence unable to establish even a partial retention.

“It did not identify any documented actual cost that would support partial retention.”

• Strength: maintained focus on the reason for withholding the deposit.
• Strength: raised weather delay and cancellation before rescheduling.
• Weakness: no itemized evidence for materials or lost time.
• Weakness: no evidentiary basis for the proposed half-and-half outcome.

The record contained unresolved factual disputes about the rain, whether the site was unsafe, and the timing and content of communications after Monday. Those issues could have mattered if they were supported by independent evidence.

The larger weakness was documentary. Gavin’s position depended on costs allegedly incurred, but the record lacked receipts, purchase proof, booking terms, and witness support. Elise’s case also did not establish any amount beyond the deposit itself.

“The record still left some uncertainty about whether any limited offset might have existed, but it was not proven.”

• No proof of rain on Monday morning was identified.
• No receipts or invoices supported the claimed costs.
• No material-purchase records were produced.
• No clear refund or cancellation term was established.

The decision illustrates the practical importance of written booking terms and contemporaneous records in consumer contract disputes. A contractor may have a legitimate claim for cancellation-related costs, but a deposit is not automatically protected merely because time was reserved or expenses are asserted.

For consumers, the result shows why the wording of the quote and the evidence behind any deduction can be decisive. For service providers, it underscores the value of clear cancellation clauses, itemized invoices, receipts, and prompt written communication when a job is delayed or cancelled.

“A deposit deduction is stronger when it is itemized, timely, and tied to actual costs.”

• A deposit clause should clearly address cancellation and refunds.
• Claimed deductions should be itemized and supported by records.
• A weather delay does not itself establish entitlement to retain a fixed deposit.
• A proven offset may be treated differently from an unsupported blanket withholding.

A different advocate could potentially have improved Gavin’s position only by presenting stronger evidence, not simply by reframing the argument. Receipts for materials, proof that items were purchased specifically for Elise’s job, a written cancellation term, and a precise calculation of unrecoverable costs could have supported a limited offset.

On the existing record, however, the absence of a visible non-refund term and the lack of itemized actual-cost proof made full retention difficult to defend. Better advocacy could have narrowed the claim, but it could not supply missing documents.

“The visible proof still favors repayment unless a proven offset is shown.”

• Potentially useful evidence: receipts, invoices, supplier records, and a cancellation clause.
• Potentially useful explanation: why materials could not be reused and how lost time was calculated.
• Likely effect: a documented partial offset, rather than automatic retention of all $600.

Would you defend the contractor’s claimed costs with a documented partial-offset case, or press for full repayment based on the missing non-refund term and lack of receipts? Take on a similar case in Legal Arena.

Take on a similar case in Legal Arena.

• Build a timeline from booking to cancellation.
• Test the written terms.
• Match every claimed deduction to a document and calculation.