HAND and ARASI CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

Case

[2020] WASAT 154

8 DECEMBER 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
HAND and ARASI CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD [2020] WASAT 154 [2020] WASAT 154 8 DECEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the plaintiff, Hand, sought relief against Araci Constructions, asserting that the company had failed to comply with a building remedy order issued by the Building Commissioner. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Hand contended that Araci Constructions had not remedied the defective building work within the stipulated timeframe, leading to further issues, and sought non-pecuniary damages for the inconvenience and distress caused by the non-compliance. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's action was valid and whether it had jurisdiction to award non-pecuniary damages in such a case.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's action was validly brought under the relevant legislation and whether the court had the jurisdiction to award non-pecuniary damages. The court examined the statutory framework governing building remedy orders and the circumstances under which a party could seek further relief. It considered whether the plaintiff had complied with the procedural requirements and whether the action was within the time limits prescribed by the legislation. Additionally, the court assessed whether it had the discretion to award non-pecuniary damages for the distress and inconvenience caused by the non-compliance.

The court found that the plaintiff's action was valid and within the legislative framework, as the plaintiff had complied with the necessary procedural steps. It held that the court had jurisdiction to award non-pecuniary damages in such cases, recognising the significant impact of the non-compliance on the plaintiff. The court noted that while the statutory scheme primarily focused on pecuniary compensation, the discretion to award non-pecuniary damages was not precluded. It concluded that the distress and inconvenience experienced by the plaintiff warranted such an award. Consequently, the court ordered Araci Constructions to pay the plaintiff a sum for non-pecuniary damages.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Building Law

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Discretion to award

  • Non-pecuniary damages

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

4

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

1