Wang v Creation Homes QLD Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 136

This Federal Court case started with a residential building project in Queensland, but the issues are familiar across many industries. A customer engaged a supplier under a staged-payment contract. The work did not finish. The customer later said the supplier had delayed performance, caused finance problems and engaged in misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct. The supplier said the real problem was non-payment of a progress claim and relied on the contract’s suspension and termination machinery.

Yu Wang contracted with Creation Homes QLD Pty Ltd to build a home in Coomera. The contract was signed on 2 February 2016. Construction did not begin immediately. The timing of land registration, finance and building approval all became important. Work eventually started in April 2018, the base stage was completed and paid, and the frame stage was then completed. On 30 May 2018 Creation issued a frame stage progress claim for $51,800. Ms Wang did not pay it. She said her construction loan had expired because of the delay and that she had reapplied for finance. Creation suspended work, later issued a notice to remedy, and then terminated the contract in January 2020.

Ms Wang commenced proceedings in December 2024. She sought damages under the Australian Consumer Law and also advanced a contract case. Creation defended the claim and cross-claimed for the unpaid frame stage amount and contractual damages. The court dismissed Ms Wang’s application and gave judgment for Creation on the cross-claim.

The visible reasons show a clear chronology built from contemporaneous documents. In December 2015 Ms Wang completed an expression of interest and paid a deposit of $12,950. She executed the land purchase contract on 28 January 2016. The building contract followed on 2 February 2016. The lot survey plan was registered on 30 June 2017. Finance for the integrated land and house package was approved on 27 July 2017, funds were advanced on 22 August 2017, and settlement occurred on 30 August 2017.

By 21 November 2017 Creation had submitted plans to the local council, but building approval was not received until 6 March 2018. Creation then sought confirmation that Ms Wang had finance approved for the construction work or funds available. After follow-up emails in March 2018, Ms Wang said her construction loan was ready and provided banker details. Creation contacted the banker and eventually received a loan approval letter on 5 April 2018. It then sent a site start letter on 11 April 2018, advising that works would commence on 16 April 2018.

Construction started on or around 16 April 2018. Inspection certificates and reports showed excavation, piers and related work in late April and early May. Creation issued the base stage progress claim on 8 May 2018 for $38,850, and that claim was paid. Work then moved to the frame stage. Compliance certificates were issued in May 2018, and on 30 May 2018 Creation emailed a photograph of the completed frame and the frame stage invoice for $51,800.

When that claim was not paid, Creation followed up on 13 June 2018. Ms Wang replied on 14 June saying her construction loan and land loan had originally been approved together, but due to the delay of construction her construction loan had terminated and she had reapplied. On 15 June 2018 Creation issued a notice suspending works because the frame stage claim was overdue. In July 2018 Ms Wang’s solicitor proposed that Creation complete the construction first and be repaid after refinancing. Creation did not accept that proposal. In January 2020 it issued a notice to remedy and then a notice of termination.

The court had to deal with two different legal tracks. The first was Ms Wang’s claim. She alleged misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the ACL, unconscionable conduct under section 21, and breach of contract. Her case, as the reasons describe it, was difficult to follow. In substance, she said Creation delayed construction, failed to provide timely notifications and inspections, and caused her to lose finance and suffer loss.

A threshold issue for the ACL damages claim was limitation. Section 236(2) of the ACL allows an action for damages to be commenced within six years after the day on which the cause of action accrued. The court had to decide when the relevant damage was actually suffered. That question mattered because the proceeding was not filed until December 2024.

The second track was Creation’s cross-claim. Creation alleged that Ms Wang breached the contract by failing to pay the frame stage progress claim of $51,800. It said the contract entitled it to suspend work for non-payment, issue a notice to remedy, and then terminate if the breach was not remedied. It also claimed contractual damages after termination. The catchwords show there was also a private international law issue about whether the relevant limitation statute was that of Queensland or New South Wales, although the visible reasons mainly set out the ACL limitation analysis and the final orders.

The court dismissed Ms Wang’s originating application. On the ACL claim, the court held that the action was commenced outside the time permitted by section 236(2). The reasons state that, for ACL damages claims, the cause of action accrues when damage is actually suffered, even if it is discovered later. On the court’s analysis, any relevant damage had occurred by around mid-2018 at the latest.

The court broke that down in practical terms. If the alleged loss arose from delay in commencing construction, the loss took the form of expiry of the construction loan and inability to obtain fresh finance, and the evidence showed that had occurred by July 2018 at the latest. If the claim relied on failures to provide reports, facilitate inspections or misleading reports about progress, those matters and their consequences were also complete by around the middle of 2018 because there was no suggestion work was carried out after 30 May 2018. If the claim relied on alleged bypassing of critical construction stages, any loss would have occurred when the allegedly deficient work was completed, again no later than 30 May 2018 on the visible evidence. On any of those views, the proceeding filed in December 2024 was too late.

The court also said that, even apart from limitation, the ACL case had no substance on the way it was presented. The reasons say there was no evidence of misleading or deceptive conduct beyond bald assertions. They also say that the only identifiable basis for unconscionable conduct was the delay in commencing construction, and that the significant delay did not itself point to any failure, let alone unconscionable conduct, by Creation.

Creation succeeded on its cross-claim. The final orders required Ms Wang to pay $51,800 plus interest at 15 per cent per annum from 6 June 2018, and damages of $114,742.66 plus interest at 15 per cent per annum from 28 January 2020. She was also ordered to pay Creation’s costs of the application and the cross-claim, as agreed or assessed.

This case is useful for businesses that work under milestone contracts, especially where commencement depends on customer finance, approvals or third-party processes. The first lesson is about trigger points. The contract here did not simply require immediate commencement after signing. It tied the start of physical construction to the later of finance confirmation and receipt of all required approvals. If your contract uses similar trigger points, they should be drafted clearly and then tracked carefully in practice.

The second lesson is about payment discipline. The contract required progress claims to be paid within five working days. When the frame stage claim was not paid, the builder relied on express contractual rights to suspend work and later terminate. The visible reasons also record that the contract expressly said suspension for non-payment did not prevent later termination steps based on the same non-payment. Businesses that rely on staged payments should make sure those rights are stated clearly and exercised exactly as the contract requires.

The third lesson is about ACL allegations. A customer may say that delay, silence or poor communication was misleading or unconscionable. But the court will still look for evidence of actual conduct, actual representations, or silence in circumstances where disclosure was required, and then ask whether that conduct caused the claimed loss. Labels alone will not carry the case.

The fourth lesson is limitation risk. Businesses often focus on the merits and overlook timing. This decision shows that the date when loss was first suffered can end the case before the court reaches the deeper factual dispute. If your business receives a complaint framed under the ACL, identify early when the alleged loss is said to have occurred.

Finally, this case should be read with some care because the visible reasons are incomplete. The final orders are clear, and the ACL limitation reasoning is visible, but the detailed reasoning behind the damages amount on the cross-claim is not fully shown. That means the case is strongest as a practical example of limitation, contract administration and staged-payment enforcement, rather than as a complete public guide to the court’s damages methodology.

The judgment was delivered by Kennett J on 27 February 2026 in the Federal Court of Australia. The hearing took place on 18 December 2025. The applicant was self-represented. The visible reasons include the catchwords, orders, chronology, key contract clauses and the court’s reasoning on the ACL claim, together with the final orders on the cross-claim.

Some parts of the reasons are not visible in the published text used for this page. In particular, the detailed reasoning for the contractual damages amount awarded on the cross-claim is not fully available here. Readers should therefore treat this page as a practical explainer of the visible parts of the decision and obtain the complete reasons before relying on the case for detailed precedent, especially on damages analysis.