Architectural Designer Faces Tribunal Over Dispute for Unpaid Work

An architectural designer has taken a woman to the Disputes Tribunal after she refused to pay an invoice for work he claims to have completed without a formal contract. The case has drawn attention to the nature of client-designer relationships and whether an agreement was reached during their discussions.

In September 2022, the designer, who was simultaneously working as a real estate agent, met the woman at an open home. They shared a mutual interest in passive home design, with the woman expressing plans to build a new house. Their conversations led the designer to enter her details into his system as a prospective client, despite the absence of a formal agreement.

After initial meetings and the sharing of preliminary drawings, the woman was surprised to receive an invoice for $3,450 for approximately 30 hours of work. The designer argued that he should receive full payment for his efforts, which included contour drawings and research on cladding types. Conversely, the woman countered with a claim of $1,999, asserting that the designer had breached the Fair Trading Act.

Tribunal Examines Verbal Agreement Claims

The tribunal, led by adjudicator Sarah Simmonds, needed to determine whether the two parties had entered into a verbal contract. The designer asserted that he believed the woman was interested in proceeding with the project, particularly after she invited him to visit the property she intended to build on in early 2023.

Simmonds noted that during their discussions, the woman had indicated she was not in a hurry to start the construction. The designer claimed that when he suggested creating working drawings, her response suggested a willingness to engage with him. However, the adjudicator found that the overall tone of the woman’s replies was more of a polite deflection than an acceptance of his offer.

The situation escalated in March 2023 when the designer attended a meeting with the woman, her new partner, and a builder friend who had created concept drawings for the project. Although the designer characterized the gathering as a “handover meeting,” Simmonds highlighted that the woman did not consider his presence essential. After the meeting, the designer sent a fee proposal, to which the woman did not reply immediately.

While the designer accepted that the woman had not explicitly authorized him to begin work, he interpreted her brief acknowledgment of the proposal as consent. Simmonds disagreed, stating that any reasonable person would need more time to consider entering into a contract valued at $13,800.

Ruling Highlights Misinterpretations

Ultimately, Simmonds concluded that while the designer’s enthusiasm for the project was evident, his interpretation of the relationship was overly optimistic. The tribunal found that the woman had not intended to enter a legally binding agreement and viewed their interactions as discussions between individuals sharing a common interest in home design.

The claim for payment was dismissed, with Simmonds noting that while the designer’s conduct was persistent, it did not reach a level of unconscionability. She remarked that as soon as the woman indicated she wanted him to stop, he complied.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear communication and formal agreements in professional relationships. The ruling not only clarifies the boundaries of client-designer interactions but also emphasizes the need for mutual understanding in any business arrangement.