Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Shaun Reynolds Builder Pty Ltd v Rawlings [2017] NSWCATCD 74 Hearing dates: 21 July 2017 Date of orders: 07 September 2017 Decision date: 07 September 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G.J. Sarginson
Senior Member
Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South WalesDecision: 1. The respondent, Kim Rawlings, is to pay the applicant, Shaun Reynolds Builder Pty Ltd, the sum of $1,270.50 immediately.
Catchwords: Home Building-Repudiation of contract-Enforceability of written contract-Quantum meruit Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 ss 10, 11, 48A, 48K
Home Building Regulations 2014 Reg 5
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 38Cases Cited: Burns v Corbett [2017] NSWCA 3
Shevill v Builders Licencing Board [1982] HCA 47; (1982) 149 CLR 620
Eddy Lau Constructions Pty Ltd v Transdevelopment Enterprises Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 273
Pender v Robwenphi Pty Ltd and Anor [2008] NSWSC 1144
Urban Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Shearer [2015] NSWCATCD 9
Zammit t/as Zammit Quality Constructions v Markunsky [2015] NSWCATCD 21
Kelly v Smith [2016] NSWCATCD 92Category: Principal judgment Parties: Shaun Reynolds Builder Pty Ltd (applicant)
Kim Rawlings (respondent)Representation: Applicant: Mr Shane Reynolds, director
Respondent: Mr N. Osgood (friend) and Respondent in person
File Number(s): HB 17/00629 Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
The matter was listed for hearing at the Tribunal in Wollongong on 21 July 2017. Mr Reynolds, the director of the applicant, appeared by telephone and gave evidence. Mr Osgood, a friend of the respondent, appeared as her representative by telephone. During the course of the hearing, the respondent also appeared by telephone and gave evidence.
-
The parties were granted leave to appear by telephone because of the distance of their residence from the place of hearing. The applicant is a company located in Albury NSW. The respondent resides in Victoria. The dispute involves a claim by the applicant (‘the builder’) for unpaid work on a property located in Lavington NSW.
-
As the applicant is a company, the principles set out by the NSW Court of Appeal in Burns v Corbett [2017] NSWCA 3 regarding the inability of the Tribunal to hear disputes involving persons who are residents of different States at the time proceedings are commenced is not applicable to this matter.
-
Mr Osgood appeared as representative of the respondent as he stated the respondent has a mental health condition that affected her ability to appear. No medical evidence was provided in that regard. The director of the applicant did not oppose Mr Osgood appearing as the respondent’s representative, and leave was granted for him to do so. Mr Osgood is a friend of the respondent. During the course of the hearing, the respondent also participated and gave evidence. The manner in which the respondent participated in the hearing did not raise any issues that she was unable to reasonably participate in the hearing in accordance with Section 38(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Neither party applied for an…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Shaun Reynolds Builder Pty Ltd v Rawlings and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] NSWCATCD 74
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues were whether the written contract was enforceable and, if so, what remedies were available to the applicant. The court had to determine whether the written contract was supported by consideration and, if not, whether the applicant could recover the value of the work done under a quantum meruit claim. The court also needed to assess the enforceability of the contract and the appropriate measure of damages or restitution.
The court found that the written contract was supported by consideration as the applicant had already commenced work on the house before the agreement was formalised. Consequently, the court ruled that the contract was enforceable. However, the court also acknowledged that the respondent had repudiated the contract, which allowed the applicant to terminate the agreement. Given the repudiation, the court held that the applicant could recover the reasonable value of the work completed under a quantum meruit claim. The court assessed the value of the work and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $1,270.50 immediately.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent, Kim Rawlings, is to pay the applicant, Shaun Reynolds Builder Pty Ltd, the sum of $1,270.50 immediately.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.