Maloney v Blue Haven Pools South Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2019] NSWCATCD 17
•25 February 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Maloney v Blue Haven Pools South Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 17
[2019] NSWCATCD 17
25 February 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Christine Maloney versus Blue Haven Pools South Pty Ltd, the dispute arose in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of Queensland. Christine Maloney, the plaintiff, filed a claim against Blue Haven Pools South Pty Ltd, the defendant, for alleged breaches of home building contracts and consumer guarantees. The plaintiff sought compensation for various deficiencies and failures in the construction of her pool and associated works.
The primary legal issues the court had to address involved whether the defendant breached the home building contracts by failing to perform work to the required standard and whether the defendant breached consumer guarantees by supplying goods and services that were not of acceptable quality. Additionally, the court needed to determine the extent of the damages owed to the plaintiff, if any.
The tribunal found that the defendant did indeed breach the consumer guarantees by supplying goods and services that were not of acceptable quality. The tribunal detailed several instances where the work did not meet the standards agreed upon in the contract and the expected quality of a reasonable consumer. The tribunal also noted that the defendant had failed to adequately remedy the issues, despite multiple attempts. Consequently, the tribunal ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $94,494.23 in compensation for the deficiencies. The tribunal further directed the parties to submit their respective views on the costs associated with the proceedings and whether a further hearing would be necessary to determine these costs.
The primary legal issues the court had to address involved whether the defendant breached the home building contracts by failing to perform work to the required standard and whether the defendant breached consumer guarantees by supplying goods and services that were not of acceptable quality. Additionally, the court needed to determine the extent of the damages owed to the plaintiff, if any.
The tribunal found that the defendant did indeed breach the consumer guarantees by supplying goods and services that were not of acceptable quality. The tribunal detailed several instances where the work did not meet the standards agreed upon in the contract and the expected quality of a reasonable consumer. The tribunal also noted that the defendant had failed to adequately remedy the issues, despite multiple attempts. Consequently, the tribunal ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $94,494.23 in compensation for the deficiencies. The tribunal further directed the parties to submit their respective views on the costs associated with the proceedings and whether a further hearing would be necessary to determine these costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Costs
-
Summary Judgment
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Maston v The Owners — Strata Plan No. 11784 [2020] NSWCATCD 18
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Maston v The Owners — Strata Plan No. 11784
[2020] NSWCATCD 18
Maston v The Owners — Strata Plan No. 11784
[2020] NSWCATCD 18
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
Westfield Management Limited v Perpetual Trustee Company Limited
[2007] HCATrans 367