Lasovski v Traj Developments Pty Ltd

Lasovski v Traj Developments Pty Ltd was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs, Julie Lasovski and David Ristevski, engaged Traj Developments Pty Ltd for the construction of a house. After the completion of the construction, the plaintiffs noticed defects in the building, particularly with the windows and glazed doors, which did not meet the required standards under the BASIX Certificate. The plaintiffs sought an order for Traj Developments Pty Ltd to remove and replace the defective windows and doors, as well as to install necessary sarking, all without cost to them. The defendants contested the claims, arguing that the plaintiffs had not properly identified the defects and that they were not liable for the alleged issues.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently identified the defects in the construction work, and if so, whether Traj Developments Pty Ltd was liable for those defects. The court needed to determine whether the defects were apparent and whether the plaintiffs had given reasonable notice to the defendants. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defects were caused by the defendants' breach of the contract, and if so, what remedies were available to the plaintiffs.

The court found that the plaintiffs had adequately identified the defects and provided sufficient notice to the defendants. The court held that the defendants were liable for the defects because they had not complied with the express terms of the contract and the BASIX Certificate. The court emphasised that the defendants were required to install windows and doors that had thermally broken frames, which they had failed to do. The court ordered the defendants to remove the defective windows and doors and replace them with new ones that met the required standards. The court also ordered the defendants to install the necessary sarking in the top roof area, again within a specified timeframe. The court ruled that the defendants were to bear the cost of the required works and the plaintiffs' legal costs.

The court’s orders included specific directives for the defendants to rectify the defects within a stipulated period, provide necessary materials and equipment, and complete the work in a professional manner. The plaintiffs were also required to allow reasonable access to the property for the defendants to perform the mandated works. Furthermore, the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' legal costs as per the agreed or assessed terms.