Raju v Principle 9 Real Estate Pty Ltd t/as Principle 9 Real Estate [2025] NSWCATCD 99
Hearing dates:
30 September 2024 and 17 February 2025 (Last submission received 22 May 2025)
Date of orders:
28 July 2025
Decision date:
28 July 2025
Jurisdiction:
Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:
R Glover, General Member
Decision:
(1) By consent, Gregory Murray is joined as an applicant.
(2) The Respondents are to pay the Applicants the sum of $7,097.40 immediately.
(3) In relation to the question of costs:
(a) Within 14 days of the date of these reasons, the Applicants are to provide the Tribunal and the Respondents with any submissions and documents the Applicants intend to rely on in relation to the question of costs, including on the question as to whether costs should be fixed or assessed;
(b) Within 28 days of the date of these reasons, the Respondents are to provide the Tribunal and the Applicants with any submissions and documents that the Respondents intend to rely on in response to the application for costs;
(c) Within 35 days of the date of these reasons, the Applicants are to provide the Tribunal and the Respondents with any submissions and documents the Applicants intend to rely on in reply (only) to any submissions or documents provided by the Respondents;
(d) The parties are to address in their written submissions whether they consider that a hearing in relation to the question of costs can be dispensed with pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.
Catchwords:
CONSUMER LAW — Consumer guarantees — supply of services — guarantee as to acceptable quality — guarantee as to due care and skill – assessment of damages – assessment of compensation
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Raju v Principle 9 Real Estate Pty Ltd t/as Principle 9 Real...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Raju v Principle 9 Real Estate Pty Ltd t/as Principle 9 Real Estate [2025] NSWCATCD 99
Case
[2025] NSWCATCD 99
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Raju v Principle 9 Real Estate Pty Ltd t/as Principle 9 Real Estate involved a dispute between the applicants, Raju and Gregory Murray, and the respondents, Principle 9 Real Estate, regarding the supply of real estate services. The applicants alleged that the respondents had failed to provide services with acceptable quality and due care and skill, contrary to the Australian Consumer Law. The case was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.
The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the respondents had breached their consumer guarantees by failing to provide services that met the acceptable quality and due care and skill standards. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine the appropriate compensation for the applicants if the breaches were found to have occurred. The applicants argued that the respondents' failure to provide a habitable rental property and to repair issues in a timely manner constituted breaches of the consumer guarantees.
In its decision, the Tribunal found that the respondents had indeed breached the consumer guarantees. The evidence showed that the applicants had suffered significant inconvenience and distress due to the poor condition of the rental property and the respondents' failure to address repair issues promptly. The Tribunal assessed the compensation based on the applicants' out-of-pocket expenses and the diminution in value of the rental property. As a result, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the applicants the sum of $7,097.40 immediately. Furthermore, the Tribunal set a timetable for the parties to submit written submissions and documents on the question of costs and whether a hearing on costs was necessary.
The final orders included the joining of Gregory Murray as an applicant, the immediate payment of compensation to the applicants, and a detailed schedule for the submission of cost-related materials by the applicants and respondents.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) By consent, Gregory Murray is joined as an applicant.
(2) The Respondents are to pay the Applicants the sum of $7,097.40 immediately.
(3) In relation to the question of costs:
(a) Within 14 days of the date of these reasons, the Applicants are to provide the Tribunal and the Respondents with any submissions and documents the Applicants intend to rely on in relation to the question of costs, including on the question as to whether costs should be fixed or assessed;
(b) Within 28 days of the date of these reasons, the Respondents are to provide the Tribunal and the Applicants with any submissions and documents that the Respondents intend to rely on in response to the application for costs;
(c) Within 35 days of the date of these reasons, the Applicants are to provide the Tribunal and the Respondents with any submissions and documents the Applicants intend to rely on in reply (only) to any submissions or documents provided by the Respondents;
(d) The parties are to address in their written submissions whether they consider that a hearing in relation to the question of costs can be dispensed with pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.