Coverall NSW Pty Limited v Chaw

Coverall NSW Pty Limited appealed to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) against a decision of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) that it was liable to pay the defendant, Mr Chaw, compensation for a failure to comply with certain statutory requirements. The dispute arose out of a contract for the supply of goods and services in relation to the renovation of Mr Chaw's home. The central issue before the NCAT was whether the CTTT had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The NCAT held that the CTTT had jurisdiction to hear Mr Chaw's claim and dismissed the appeal. The NCAT found that the Tribunal was correct to find that the contract between the parties fell within the statutory definition of a "consumer contract" and that Mr Chaw was therefore a "consumer" for the purposes of the relevant legislation. In reaching its decision, the NCAT found that the CTTT was correct to reject the argument of Coverall that the definition of "consumer" in the legislation was ambiguous and therefore Coverall was entitled to seek an interpretation of the definition from the NCAT. The NCAT found that the CTTT was correct to hold that the issue of ambiguity was not before it and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The NCAT found that the CTTT was correct to affirm the decision of the primary judge that Mr Chaw was entitled to the relief he claimed and dismissed the appeal on that ground. The NCAT ordered that the appeal be dismissed, that the decision of the CTTT be affirmed, and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs, those costs not to include any charges for time spent in preparation for the hearing or at the hearing by the defendant personally other than costs which might properly be classified as a disbursement. The NCAT ordered that the exhibits be returned.