Durastyle Homes Pty Ltd v Gosling; Gosling v Durastyle Homes Pty Ltd

The matter before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal was a dispute between Durastyle Homes Pty Ltd and the Goslings, Ty Allen and Deanne Vivienne. The Goslings had engaged Durastyle Homes to construct a house for them but alleged defects and sought compensation. The Tribunal considered two applications: one by Durastyle Homes to recover amounts allegedly owed, and another by the Goslings to claim a proportion of the construction costs due to the defects. The central legal issues revolved around whether the Goslings were entitled to a refund or reimbursement for the defects and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award costs in the manner requested.

The Tribunal concluded that the Goslings were owed $13,994.97, which represented the cost of correcting defects not attributable to the Goslings' own fault. The Tribunal found no evidence of unjust enrichment to support a claim for restitution on a quantum meruit basis. Consequently, the Goslings were awarded the specified amount, and Durastyle Homes' application to recover funds was dismissed. Regarding costs, the Tribunal ruled that Durastyle Homes should pay the Goslings' costs of the applications on the ordinary basis unless either party applied for a different costs order, in which case specific procedural steps would apply.

In summary, the Tribunal ordered Durastyle Homes to pay the Goslings $13,994.97, dismissed Durastyle Homes' application, and set out the procedure for any future costs applications. The Tribunal also directed that if either party sought a different order for costs, they must adhere to a specific timeline and process for submitting and replying to evidence and submissions.