Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Case Title: Christopher Kerrie Gates v Crown Constructions Pty Limited Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCATCD 172 Hearing Date(s): 30 June 2014 Decision Date: 23 September 2014 Before: GA Kinsey, General Member Decision: 1. The respondent Crown Constructions Pty Ltd is ordered to pay the applicant Christopher Kerrie Gates the amount of $5,060.00 within 28 days of the date of this order.
Catchwords: Building claim, building defects, home warranty Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)Cases Cited: The Owners - Strata Plan No 76674 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Christopher Kerrie Gates (applicant)
Crown Constructions Pty Ltd (respondent)File Number(s): HB 14/02808 Publication Restriction: Unrestricted
REASONS FOR DECISION
Application
1 In an application filed in the Tribunal on 14 January 2014 the applicant sought an order that the respondent pay an amount of $6,600.00.
2 The applicant alleged that the respondent had breached its statutory warranty obligations pursuant to section 18B of the Home Building Act 1989 by failing to rectify water leaks and drummy tiles in the bathroom.
Jurisdiction
3 Section 48K(1) of the Home Building Act 1989 (the "Act") provides that:
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine any building claim brought before it in accordance with this Part in which the amount claimed does not exceed $500,000 (or any other higher or lower figure prescribed by the regulations).
4 A "building claim" is defined in section 48A of the Act as follows:
48A Definitions
In this Part:
building claim means a claim for:(a)the payment of a specified sum of money, or
(b)the supply of specified services, or
(c)relief from payment of a specified sum of money, or
(d)the delivery, return or replacement of specified goods or goods of a specified description or
(e)a combination of two or more of the remedies referred to in paragraphs (a)-(d),
that arises from a supply of building goods or services whether under a contract or not, or that arises under a contract that is collateral to a contract for the supply of building goods or services, but does not include a claim that the regulations declare not to be a building claim. "building dispute" means a dispute that has been notified as referred to in section 48C. "building goods or services" means goods or services supplied for or in connection with the carrying out of residential building work or specialist work, being goods or services:
(f)supplied by the person who contracts to do, or otherwise does, that work, or
(g)supplied in any circumstances prescribed by the regulations to the person who contracts to do that work.
5 Section 48A(2) of the Act Provides that a "building claim" includes:
(b) a claim for compensation for loss arising from a breach of statutory warranty implied under Part 2C.
6 The Tribunal finds that the applicant's claim is a building claim as defined and it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.
Background
7 It is common ground…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Christopher Kerrie Gates v Crown Constructions Pty Limited and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] NSWCATCD 172
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the tribunal were whether the respondent had failed to complete the works in a workmanlike manner and whether the respondent had failed to remedy defects that were identified after the works were completed. The applicant argued that the respondent had not met the required standard of workmanship and had not properly addressed the defects that were identified. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that it had completed the works in accordance with the contract and that any defects that had been identified were not the result of poor workmanship.
After considering the evidence presented by both parties, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to complete the works in a workmanlike manner and had not properly remedied the defects that were identified. The tribunal found that the respondent had not complied with the relevant building standards and had not taken reasonable steps to address the defects that were identified. The tribunal also found that the respondent had not provided the applicant with a completion certificate, as required by the building Act. Based on these findings, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the amount of $5,060.00 within 28 days of the date of the order.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent Crown Constructions Pty Ltd is ordered to pay the applicant Christopher Kerrie Gates the amount of $5,060.00 within 28 days of the date of this order.
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.