Somaskanthan v Hayes

[2025] NSWCATCD 74

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Somaskanthan v Hayes [2025] NSWCATCD 74

Hearing dates:

30 January 2025

Date of orders:

12 June 2025 (Amended 01 July 2025)

Decision date:

12 June 2025

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

Senior Member K Ross

Decision:

The Tribunal makes the following amended orders under section 63 of the Civil Administrative Tribunal Act 2013:

(1)   Michael Hayes and Kathleen Jones are to pay Saravanan Somaskanthan and Lyndal Keevers to sum of $61,946.79 on or before 7 July 2025.

(2)   The claim by Michael Hayes and Kathleen Jones is dismissed.

(3)   Saravanan Somaskanthan and Lyndal Keevers (being the Applicants) are to file and serve any application for costs by 23 June 2025. If a lump sum cost order is sought, the submissions should include evidence of the amount claimed, and supporting documentation such as tax invoices and cost agreements.

(4)   Any submissions in reply are to be filed and served by 7 July 2025.

(5)   Submissions must address whether a hearing of the cost application can be dispensed with.

Catchwords:

BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION: Home Building – where Builder unlicensed at date of contract – no insurance – no contract in writing

Legislation Cited:

Home Building Act 1989

Cases Cited:

Alexander & Anor v Gregoriou & Ors [2010] NSWDC 15 (22 February 2010)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Saravanan Somaskanthan & Lyndal Keevers

Michael Anthony Hayes & Kathleen Jones

Representation:

Both parties in person

File Number(s):

2024/00215311
2024/00283843

Publication restriction:

unrestricted

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applications

1. The applicants (the Homeowners) engaged the respondent Michael Hayes (Michael) to carry out work at their home in Umina Beach. At Michael’s request payments were made to Kathleen Jones (Kathleen). In these reasons I will refer to Michael and Kathleen as “the Builder”.

2. This dispute illustrates the problems which can arise when parties do not comply with the Home Building Act 1989 (the HBA). There was no agreement in writing as required by s 7 of the HBA. The Builder did not hold a current license. The Builder did not provide Homeowners warranty insurance.

3. The Homeowners claim that the Builder breached the warranties in s 18 of the HBA. They claim that the work carried out by the Builder is incomplete and defective, and was not completed in a reasonable time. They allege that the Builder abandoned the contract. They seek compensation for the cost of rectifying the work, and a refund of monies paid to the Builder, on the basis that the Builder breached the HBA in failing to hold a current license at the time the work was carried out, failing to enter into written contracts and failing to provide home warranty insurance.

4. The Builder opposes the orders sought. The Builder says that there is no evidence that the work is defective, or incomplete, and argues that there were in fact 25 separate agreements, each of which fell under the $5000 threshold in the HBA. The Builder claims that there was no agreement for the…