Ahmad v Bourne Construction Australia - [2025] FedCFamC2G 1616

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Ahmad v Bourne Construction Australia [2025] FedCFamC2G 1616

File number(s): MLG 1765 of 2025

Judgment of: JUDGE MANSINI

Date of judgment: 2 October 2025

Catchwords:
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS – jurisdiction of the Court to hear a claim for damages under s.267(4) of the Australian Consumer Law – where damages sought exceed $750,000 – consideration of application of s.138A – where Applicants seek unparticularised damages for alleged breaches of Subdivisions A and B of Division 1 of Part 3-2 – Applicants granted leave to re-plead.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for transfer to Federal Court – consideration of factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion – no transfer order made.

Legislation:
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ss. 138A, 236, 267

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s.153

Building Act 1995 (Vic)

Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r.8.02

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) rr.1.06, 20.01)

Cases cited: Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd (2020) 268 CLR 326

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 44

Date of hearing: 3 September 2025

Place: Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr Sharkey

Solicitor for the Applicants: SLF Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Devanny

Solicitor for the Respondent: Pera Lawyers
ORDERS

MLG 1765 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
AHMAD AHMAD

First Applicant

ROULA AHMAD

Second Applicant

AND:
BOURNE CONSTRUCTION AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MANSINI

DATE OF ORDER:

2 OCTOBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application in a proceeding filed on 11 August 2025 be dismissed.
2.The Applicants have leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim by 4.00pm on 30 October 2025.
3.The matter be re-listed for mention hearing before Her Honour Judge Mansini at 9.30am on 12 November 2025, in person at the Melbourne Registry.
4.Costs be reserved.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judge Mansini
IN SUMMARY

This is an application for damages by reason of alleged building defects and breaches of the statutory consumer guarantees and/or breach of contract.
At the relevant times, the Respondent operated a business as a builder of domestic buildings pursuant to registration under the Building Act 1995 (Vic). In November 2017, the Applicants contracted with the Respondent for the construction of a split level rendered poly and garage at the contract price of $500,000. There…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ahmad v Bourne Construction Australia

Details

AGLC: Ahmad v Bourne Construction Australia [2025] FedCFamC2G 1616
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 1616
Decision Date: 2 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved Ahmad, the Applicant, bringing a claim against Bourne Construction Australia, the Respondent, seeking damages under the Australian Consumer Law. The claim was initially brought before the Federal Circuit Court, but Bourne Construction Australia sought to have it transferred to the Federal Court, arguing that the claim exceeded the jurisdictional limit of the Federal Circuit Court. The primary issue before the Court was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the claim and, if so, whether it should be transferred to the Federal Court.

The Court considered the jurisdictional limits of the Federal Circuit Court and whether the claim fell within those limits. It was noted that the Australian Consumer Law provides that the Federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction over claims for unparticularised damages over $750,000. The Court also considered the application of s.138A of the Australian Consumer Law, which allows for unparticularised damages to be claimed. The Court found that the claim for damages fell within the jurisdictional limit of the Federal Circuit Court, and that the Applicants were entitled to seek unparticularised damages under s.138A of the Australian Consumer Law. The Applicants were granted leave to re-plead their claim.

The Court also considered the application for transfer to the Federal Court. It noted that an application for transfer should only be made in exceptional circumstances, and that the decision should be made on a balance of convenience. The Court found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted a transfer to the Federal Court, and that the matter should remain before the Federal Circuit Court. The application for transfer was dismissed.

The Court ordered that the matter remain before the Federal Circuit Court and that the Applicants be granted leave to re-plead their claim. The Court did not make any orders for costs.

Orders