Feng v Haghparast

[2023] NSWDC 310

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Feng v Haghparast [2023] NSWDC 310

Hearing dates:

14 August 2023

Date of orders:

14 August 2023

Decision date:

14 August 2023

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Acting Judge Levy SC

Decision:

1. Dismissal of the plaintiff/appellant’s summons filed on 18 May 2023 appealing the decision of the Small Claims Division of the Local Court on 24 April 2023.

2. The plaintiff / appellant is to pay the respondent / defendant’s costs of the dismissed summons.

Catchwords:

APPEALS – Appeal from decision of an Assessor in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court – grounds of appeal limited by statute - application of s 39(2) of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) - appealed decision was within the jurisdictional remit of the Small Claims Division – denial of procedural fairness not established – summons and appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Home Building Act 1989, (NSW) s 7B; s 18B

Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), s 39(2)

Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW), cl 308

Cases Cited:

Carolan v AMF Bowling Pty Ltd t/a Bennetts Green Bowl [1995] NSWCA 69.

Zelden v Henamast Pty ltd v Sewell [2011] NSWCA 56

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Plaintiff: Ruibao Feng (In person)
Defendant: Ferydon Haghparast (In person)

File Number(s):

2022/160852

Publication restriction:

None

JUDGMENT

Nature of the case and parties

1. This is an appeal brought as of right from a decision of the Small Claims Division of the Local Court of New South Wales in respect of proceedings that were determined on 24 April 2023 by Assessor Harvey in Wollongong.

2. The parties elected to be self-represented both at the hearing in the Local Court, and in the appeal.

3. The plaintiff / appellant in this Court, Mr Ruibao Feng, a homeowner, was the defendant in the Local Court proceedings.

4. The defendant / respondent in this Court, Mr Ferydon Haghparast, a supplier of building related services, was the plaintiff in the Local Court proceedings, where he sued for non-payment of services he had provided to Mr Feng.

5. The parties had entered into a form of contract relating to the supervision of construction of a granny flat on Mr Feng’s property, whereby Mr Haghparast had agreed to provide supervisory services to Mr Feng’s building project at an agreed price for which ultimately, Mr Feng did not fully pay him. Mr Haghparast therefore initiated the underlying proceedings in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court.

6. In the Local Court, essential the dispute concerned whether the work claimed by Mr Haghparast was in fact performed by him, and if so, what amount should he be paid for that work. The amount at issue was $15,000, which included a deposit of $5,000 that had been pre-paid by Mr Feng, leaving an outstanding balance of $10,000, which Mr Haghparast claimed Mr Feng still owed him. The proceedings included a cross-claim by Mr Feng.

7. Mr Haghparast was successful in his Local Court proceedings where the cross-claim was dismissed and he obtained a…