Tarbuck and Anor v Robertson and Anor (Civil Dispute)
Case
•
[2018] ACAT 115
•15 November 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Tarbuck and Anor v Robertson and Anor (Civil Dispute) [2018] ACAT 115
[2018] ACAT 115
15 November 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, Tarbuck and Anor, brought an application against the respondents, Robertson and Anor, seeking the balance owing on a contract for renovation works. The respondents counter-claimed for the cost of rectifying defective work, alleging that the building work was not in compliance with building standards and was not conducted in a proper and skilful way. The matter was heard and determined by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants were entitled to the balance owing on the contract and whether the respondents were entitled to damages for defective work. The applicants argued that they had completed the work in accordance with the contract and that the respondents had not provided a certificate of completion. The respondents argued that the work was defective and not in compliance with building standards and that they were entitled to damages for the cost of rectifying the defects.
The Tribunal found that the applicants had completed the work in accordance with the contract but that the work was not in compliance with building standards and was not conducted in a proper and skilful way. The Tribunal assessed the damages for the cost of rectifying the defects at $25,000, being the jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal also ordered that the applicants pay the respondents the difference between the amounts payable on the claim and the counter-claim, being $21,375.
The Tribunal ordered that judgment be entered for the applicants on the claim in the sum of $3,775 and for the respondents on their counter-claim in the sum of $25,150, being the damages assessed plus the filing fee. The Tribunal further ordered that the amount payable by the respondents at Order 1 shall be credited against the amount payable by the applicants at Order 2, and that the applicants shall pay to the respondents within 28 days the sum of $21,375 being the difference between the amounts payable at Orders 1 and 2.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants were entitled to the balance owing on the contract and whether the respondents were entitled to damages for defective work. The applicants argued that they had completed the work in accordance with the contract and that the respondents had not provided a certificate of completion. The respondents argued that the work was defective and not in compliance with building standards and that they were entitled to damages for the cost of rectifying the defects.
The Tribunal found that the applicants had completed the work in accordance with the contract but that the work was not in compliance with building standards and was not conducted in a proper and skilful way. The Tribunal assessed the damages for the cost of rectifying the defects at $25,000, being the jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal also ordered that the applicants pay the respondents the difference between the amounts payable on the claim and the counter-claim, being $21,375.
The Tribunal ordered that judgment be entered for the applicants on the claim in the sum of $3,775 and for the respondents on their counter-claim in the sum of $25,150, being the damages assessed plus the filing fee. The Tribunal further ordered that the amount payable by the respondents at Order 1 shall be credited against the amount payable by the applicants at Order 2, and that the applicants shall pay to the respondents within 28 days the sum of $21,375 being the difference between the amounts payable at Orders 1 and 2.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Contract Formation
-
Breach of Contract
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Judicial Review
-
Limitation Periods
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
2
Cary Boyd v Agrison Pty Ltd
[2014] VMC 23
Cary Boyd v Agrison Pty Ltd
[2014] VMC 23