Mohammad v Local Court of New South Wales and Sleiman

The case of Mohammad v Local Court of New South Wales and Sleiman involved a dispute concerning concreting work at Greenacre. Mohammad, the plaintiff, claimed that Sleiman, the defendant, did not enter into a written contract with him for the work performed. The matter was initially heard in the Local Court of New South Wales, and an appeal followed. Mohammad argued that Sleiman had breached sections 7 and 92 of the Home Building Act 1989 by not entering into a written contract and by not complying with the insurance requirements. Mohammad also sought a quantum meruit claim for the work done.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Sleiman was liable for the work under sections 10 and 94 of the Home Building Act 1989, and if so, what the appropriate basis for assessing damages was. The court needed to determine if Mohammad's claim for damages was at large or if it could be assessed on a principled basis. The court was also required to decide whether the correct principles were applied in assessing the damages in the original decision.

The court found that Sleiman was indeed liable for the work done under sections 10 and 94 of the Home Building Act 1989. The court held that the damages must be assessed on a principled basis, not at large, and that the original decision did not apply the correct principles. The court further held that the damages should be based on the reasonable value of the work performed, taking into account the skill, labour, and materials involved. The court emphasised that the assessment must be principled and not arbitrary, ensuring fairness and consistency in similar future cases.