Culina v Timilty Constructions PL

Case [2022] NSWCATCD 109

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Culina v Timilty Constructions PL [2022] NSWCATCD 109
Hearing dates: 21 January 2022
Date of orders: 23 June 2022
Decision date: 23 June 2022
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: G K Burton SC, Senior Member
Decision:

1. Order that the respondent Timilty Constructions PL pay Dean Culina $61,012.08 on or before 21 July 2022.

2. Order as follows in respect of costs:

(a) Any party wishing to seek an order for costs is to file and serve that application with any further documents and any submissions relating to that application (including any request with supporting reasons for a further hearing on costs) on or before 7 July 2022.

(b) Any documents and submissions in response to material served under (a) is to be filed and served on or before 21 July 2022.

(c) Documents and submissions filed and served are not to repeat existing evidence and submissions but may cross-refer to them.

Catchwords:

BUILDING and CONSTRUCTION - HOME BUILDING – alleged defective work – work order or money order – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) ss 3B, 18B, 18E, 48MA, 48O

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW)

Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)

Home Building Regulation 2014 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Barwick v Shetab [2017] NSWCATAP 127

Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CL

BNT Constructions PL v Allen [2017] NSWCATAP 186

Bonita v Shen [2016] NSWCATAP 159

Brennan Constructions PL v Davison [2018] NSWCATAP 210

Brooks v Gannon Constructions PL [2017] NSWCATCD 12

Catapult Constructions PL v Denison [2018] NSWCATAP 158

Clements v Murphy [2018] NSWCATAP 152

Downer EDI Rail PL v John Holland PL [2018] NSWSC 326

Galdona v Peacock [2017] NSWCATAP 64

GPM Constructions PL v Baker [2018] NSWCATAP 119

Johnson t/as One Tree Constructions v Lukeman [2017] NSWCATAP 45

Karakominakis v Big Country Developments PL [2000] NSWCA 313

Kumar v Sabharwal [2017] NSWCATAP 200

Kurmond Homes v Marsden [2018] NSWCATAP 23

Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534

Maiolo v Chiarelli [2016] NSWCATAP 81

Marr v JCK Building Solutions PL [2018] NCATCCD, unreported, 4 December 2018, HB 16/43946

Oppidan Homes PL v Yang [2017] NSWCATAP 67

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72

Owners SP 76674 v Di Blasio Constructions PL [2014] NSWSC 1067

Owners SP 78465 v MD Constructions PL [2016] NSWSC 162

Petropoulos v CPD Holdings PL t/as The Bathroom Exchange (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 233

Probuild Constructions (Aust) PL v DDI Group PL (2017) 95 NSWLR 82; [2017] NSWCA 151

Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments PL (2009) 236 CLR 272, [2009] HCA 8

TCN Channel 9 PL v Hayden Enterprises PL (1989) 16 NSWLR 130

Thompson v Chapman [2016] NSWCATAP 6

Unity Insurance Brokers PL v Rocco Pezzano PL (1998) 192 CLR 603

Walker Group Constructions PL v Tzaneros Investments PL [2017] NSWCA 27

White v Sunrise Pools Aust PL [2017] NSWCATAP 216

Texts Cited:

Nil 

Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Continue reading Culina v Timilty Constructions PL

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Culina v Timilty Constructions PL [2022] NSWCATCD 109
Case
[2022] NSWCATCD 109
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dean Culina brought a claim against Timilty Constructions PL in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, alleging that the respondent had performed defective work in connection with the construction of a home. The claim was brought pursuant to the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), which provides a statutory scheme for the resolution of disputes between home builders and consumers. The applicant sought a work order to remedy the defects, an order for the payment of money in the alternative, and an order for costs. The respondent denied liability and opposed the orders sought.

The primary issue for the Tribunal was whether the respondent was liable for defective work under the statutory scheme. This required an analysis of the statutory provisions and case law, as well as the factual evidence in the matter. The Tribunal considered whether the respondent had breached its obligations under the Act, and if so, what remedy was appropriate. The respondent argued that it had met its obligations and that the defects were not its fault.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was liable for the defective work and ordered that the respondent pay the applicant $61,012.08. The Tribunal found that the respondent had breached its obligations under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) and that the defects were the result of poor workmanship. The Tribunal also made orders in relation to costs, including a timetable for the filing and serving of cost applications and responses.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order that the respondent Timilty Constructions PL pay Dean Culina $61,012.08 on or before 21 July 2022.

2. Order as follows in respect of costs:

(a) Any party wishing to seek an order for costs is to file and serve that application with any further documents and any submissions relating to that application (including any request with supporting reasons for a further hearing on costs) on or before 7 July 2022.

(b) Any documents and submissions in response to material served under (a) is to be filed and served on or before 21 July 2022.

(c) Documents and submissions filed and served are not to repeat existing evidence and submissions but may cross-refer to them.

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.