Chouhan v Morrison Homes Pty Ltd

Case [2021] NSWCATCD 155


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chouhan v Morrison Homes Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 155
Hearing dates: 6 September 2021
Date of orders: 31 December 2021
Decision date: 31 December 2021
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: D Goldstein, Senior Member
Decision:

1. Morrison Homes Pty Ltd must pay Preet Chouhan and Harjinder Chouhan $1,500.00 immediately.

2. Not later than 28 February 2022, Morrison Homes Pty Ltd must carry out the work referred to in [143] of the Reasons in accordance with the requirements of that paragraph.

3. Preet Chouhan and Harjinder Chouhan have leave to renew these proceedings if Morrison Homes Pty Ltd has not complied with order 2 by the time stated in that order.

4. In the event that a party wishes to bring a costs application, the costs application must be lodged in the Tribunal and served on the costs respondent within 14 days of the date of the orders in these proceedings either attaching or referring to the documents relied upon in support of the application.

5. The costs respondent will have 14 days after the date it or he receives the application to lodge in the Tribunal and serve on the costs applicant his or its submissions, if any, in response to the costs application, such submissions either attaching or referring to the documents relied upon.

6. The parties must state in their submissions whether or not they consent to the costs application being determined on the basis of the parties written submissions and attached documents, if any, without the need for a hearing.

7. Subject to the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal will determine any costs application on the basis of the papers lodged in the Tribunal.

Catchwords:

BUILDING and CONSTRUCTION – Defects – Expert evidence

Legislation Cited:

Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Deacon v National Strategic Constructions Pty Ltd; National Strategic Constructions Pty Ltd v Deacon [2017] NSWCATAP 185

Hislop v Jakanda Pty Limited [2019] NSWCATCD

MacFayden and Anor v G Tadrosse [2014] NSWCATCD 194

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Preet Chouhan (First Applicant)
Harjinder Chouhan (Second Applicant)
Morrison Homes Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation: First Applicant (Self-represented)
Second Applicant (Self-represented)
Respondent (Self-represented)
File Number(s): HB 21/12297
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. These proceedings arise as a consequence of work done by the respondent for the applicants under a HIA NSW Residential Building Contract for New Dwellings signed by the parties on 7 March 2018. The respondent’s expert states that the owners took possession of the residence constructed by the respondent on 20 December 2019.

  2. In these reasons I will refer to the applicants as the owners and to the respondent as the builder.

  3. There was no submission made that the Tribunal did not possess the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine these proceedings pursuant to the Home Building Act 1989 (‘the Act). These proceedings were brought in sufficient time for all defects alleged by the owners to be considered and determined by the Tribunal.

Continue reading Chouhan v Morrison Homes Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Chouhan v Morrison Homes Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 155
Case
[2021] NSWCATCD 155
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court involved a dispute between Preet and Harjinder Chouhan, the plaintiffs, and Morrison Homes Pty Ltd, the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged defects in their newly constructed home, and the defendant was responsible for the construction. The case was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The primary focus of the case was the quality of the construction work and whether it met the required standards.

The main legal issues that the Court had to address were whether Morrison Homes Pty Ltd breached its contractual obligations by failing to construct the home in a workmanlike manner and whether the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of defects. Additionally, the Court had to consider the admissibility and weight of expert evidence presented by both parties.

In reaching its decision, the Court considered the contractual terms, the evidence provided by both parties, and the expert opinions presented. The Court found that Morrison Homes Pty Ltd did breach its contractual obligations by failing to construct the home in a workmanlike manner, leading to various defects. The Court also found that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of defects. The Court further determined that the expert evidence presented by both parties was admissible and gave appropriate weight to it in reaching its decision.

As a result of the Court's findings, Morrison Homes Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the plaintiffs $1,500.00 immediately, and to carry out the required work by a specified date. The plaintiffs were also granted leave to renew these proceedings if the defendant failed to comply with the order. Additionally, the Court outlined a process for any future costs applications, requiring the parties to submit written submissions and to consent to having the application determined on the basis of the papers lodged in the Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Morrison Homes Pty Ltd must pay Preet Chouhan and Harjinder Chouhan $1,500.00 immediately.

2. Not later than 28 February 2022, Morrison Homes Pty Ltd must carry out the work referred to in [143] of the Reasons in accordance with the requirements of that paragraph.

3. Preet Chouhan and Harjinder Chouhan have leave to renew these proceedings if Morrison Homes Pty Ltd has not complied with order 2 by the time stated in that order.

4. In the event that a party wishes to bring a costs application, the costs application must be lodged in the Tribunal and served on the costs respondent within 14 days of the date of the orders in these proceedings either attaching or referring to the documents relied upon in support of the application.

5. The costs respondent will have 14 days after the date it or he receives the application to lodge in the Tribunal and serve on the costs applicant his or its submissions, if any, in response to the costs application, such submissions either attaching or referring to the documents relied upon.

6. The parties must state in their submissions whether or not they consent to the costs application being determined on the basis of the parties written submissions and attached documents, if any, without the need for a hearing.

7. Subject to the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal will determine any costs application on the basis of the papers lodged in the Tribunal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.