Sharma v Premutico

[2025] NSWCATCD 101

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Sharma v Premutico [2025] NSWCATCD 101

Hearing dates:

12 February 2025

Date of orders:

31 July 2025

Decision date:

31 July 2025

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

G K Burton SC, Senior Member

Decision:

(1)   Order that Gustavo Premutico pay Sanjay Sharma $24,070 immediately.

(2)   Make no order as to the costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:

BUILDING and CONSTRUCTION – HOME BUILDING – identity of builder – correct revision of contract - refund of alleged overpayment – alleged defective works – work or money order

Legislation Cited:

Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)

Home Building Regulation 2014 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

BNT Constructions PL v Allen [2017] NSWCATAP 186

Brennan Constructions PL v Davison [2018] NSWCATAP 210

Brooks v Gannon Constructions PL [2017] NSWCATCD 12

Clements v Murphy [2018] NSWCATAP 152

David Securities PL v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353, [1992] HCA 48

Galdona v Peacock [2017] NSWCATAP 64

Kumar v Sabharwal [2017] NSWCATAP 200

Kurmond Homes PL v Marsden [2018] NSWCATAP 23

Paraiso v CBS Build PL [2020] NSWSC 190

Wright v Foresight Constructions PL [2011] NSWCA 327

Xu v Jinhong Design & Constructions PL [2011] NSWCA 277

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Sanjay Sharma (applicant)
Gustavo Premutico (respondent)

Representation:

Applicant self-represented
Respondent by Mr V Stanton (friend)

File Number(s):

2024/00300459

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Outcome of proceedings

1. I have decided that the applicant is entitled to a money order against the respondent for part of the applicant’s claimed amount.

2. Both parties did not have legal representation at the final hearing and there was no application for or grant of leave for legal representation; no mention of legal representation was made during the hearing. There are no costs orders made.

Background, issues, procedural matters

3. In these proceedings filed 12 August 2024 the applicant, himself a licensed builder, alleged that he had engaged the respondent personally for concreting work undertaken by sub-contract to the applicant in a new build in Ermington, a northwestern suburb in Sydney, NSW.

4. The applicant initially claimed $7,700 as the cost to remediate alleged defective works that breached the statutory warranties in s 18B of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (HBA) and $39,186 for alleged overpayment. The amounts claimed altered in the course of evidence.

5. The respondent was appropriately licensed at the period of the works but not presently, so far as disclosed in the evidence. The works constituted residential building work as defined in HBA Sch 1 paras 2(1)(a), 2(3)(a) and 3(1) with Home Building Regulation 2014 (NSW) reg 12. The works required homeowners’ warranty HBCF insurance since they exceeded $20,000 in the reasonable market cost of labour and materials involved: HBA ss 7(2)(f1), 92, 94; Home Building Regulation 2014 (NSW) reg 53. There was no dispute raised in these proceedings that the project was appropriately insured as to amount.

6. The claim was brought within time for any type of defect and within the monetary limit for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction…