Kursun v Paul Garreffa t/as Paul's Home Maintenance
Case
•
[2017] NSWCATCD 4
•17 January 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kursun v Paul Garreffa t/as Paul's Home Maintenance [2017] NSWCATCD 4
[2017] NSWCATCD 4
17 January 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Vincenza Kursun, sought compensation from the respondent, Paul Garreffa, trading as Paul's Home Maintenance, for defective building work conducted on her residential property. The dispute was heard and determined by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The primary issue before the Tribunal was to determine the extent of the respondent's liability for the defective work and to ascertain the appropriate quantum of damages owed to the applicant.
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the evidence and expert opinions provided by both parties. The Tribunal found that the respondent had indeed performed defective work, which resulted in significant damage to the applicant's property. The parties presented competing expert opinions regarding the cause of the damage and the appropriate course of remediation. However, the Tribunal ultimately accepted the applicant's expert's evidence, finding it to be more reliable and credible.
The Tribunal found that the respondent was liable for the defective work and ordered him to pay the applicant the sum of $10,781.38 within 28 days of the date of the order. The Tribunal also made orders regarding the procedure for any subsequent costs applications that may be made by the parties. The Tribunal determined that the matter could be resolved on the basis of the papers lodged, unless a party sought to be heard in person and provided reasons for such a request.
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the evidence and expert opinions provided by both parties. The Tribunal found that the respondent had indeed performed defective work, which resulted in significant damage to the applicant's property. The parties presented competing expert opinions regarding the cause of the damage and the appropriate course of remediation. However, the Tribunal ultimately accepted the applicant's expert's evidence, finding it to be more reliable and credible.
The Tribunal found that the respondent was liable for the defective work and ordered him to pay the applicant the sum of $10,781.38 within 28 days of the date of the order. The Tribunal also made orders regarding the procedure for any subsequent costs applications that may be made by the parties. The Tribunal determined that the matter could be resolved on the basis of the papers lodged, unless a party sought to be heard in person and provided reasons for such a request.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Consumer Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
6
Moloney v Collins
[2011] NSWSC 628
Ryledar Pty Ltd v Euphoric Pty Ltd
[2007] NSWCA 65
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd
[2004] HCA 52