Bowman v Curtis

Bowman, the applicant, brought proceedings against Curtis, the respondent, in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) alleging that Curtis had failed to comply with an order issued by the CTTT in a prior dispute between the parties. The issue before the tribunal was whether the court should make a work or a money order in respect of the defects identified in the building work. The dispute originated from a prior proceeding where the CTTT found that Curtis had breached the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) by failing to complete the building work to the required standard. Curtis was ordered to remedy the defects, which he failed to do. Bowman sought a work order, arguing that Curtis had not taken any steps to remedy the defects. Curtis argued that the defects could not be remedied and that a money order should be made in lieu.

The tribunal found that the defects identified could not be remedied and that a money order was appropriate. The tribunal noted that the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) allows for a money order to be made in lieu of a work order if the defects cannot be remedied. The tribunal also noted that the amount of the money order should reflect the cost of remedying the defects. The tribunal ordered Curtis to pay Bowman the sum of $26,490.89 within 21 days of the date of the order.