Whitehead v Young

The appeal was brought by Simon Whitehead and Helen Naylor, the Appellants, against the Respondent, Young. The Appellants were engaged to carry out building work on a property. They deny being the owner-builders of the property. The dispute revolves around the responsibility for defects in the roof, whether it was the Appellants or the original owners who were liable. The Appellants also brought a claim for damages for rectification. The dispute involves a disagreement over the nature and terms of the oral contract between the parties, including whether the Appellants were responsible for underlying existing roof defects. Additionally, there is a question regarding the responsibilities of the owner-builder as the head or principal contractor in relation to owner-builder work.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Appellants were the owner-builders of the property and, if so, what their responsibilities were in relation to the defects in the roof. Another issue was whether the Appellants had a valid claim for damages for rectification. The court also needed to determine the nature of the oral contract between the parties, including whether the Appellants were responsible for any underlying existing roof defects. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the Appellants were liable for the work carried out and whether they were entitled to relief from payment of the judgment in the Magistrates Court.

The court found that the Appellants were the owner-builders of the property and, as such, were responsible for the defects in the roof. The court held that the Appellants had not established that the defects were due to underlying existing conditions, and therefore they were liable for the defects. The court also found that the Appellants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim for damages for rectification. The court held that the Appellants were not entitled to relief from payment of the judgment in the Magistrates Court. The court found that the Tribunal's decision was not sufficiently reasoned, and therefore it was not possible to determine the basis for the decision. The appeal was dismissed, but the Appellants were granted leave to appeal on one point. The Appellants' application for their costs of the appeal was dismissed. The name of the Third Respondent was changed to BJF Constructions Pty Ltd. The decision of 12 September 2011 was altered to require the Applicants to pay BJF Constructions Pty Ltd the sum of $1,975.00 within seven days.