Raj Saneja and Manju Saneja v Dynabuild Pty Ltd Dynabuild Pty Ltd v Raj Saneja and Manju Saneja [2014] NSWCATCD 84

Raj Saneja and Manju Saneja v Dynabuild Pty Ltd Dynabuild Pty Ltd v Raj Saneja and Manju Saneja [2014] NSWCATCD 84

The Tribunal found that the contract, properly construed in light of the drawings, the KH Standard Specification and surrounding circumstances, included the Ultra Floor system, so the builder's purported Ultra Floor variation was invalid and the homeowners were entitled to reimbursement. Several defects or incomplete items were proven. The builder failed to prove actual delay caused by the homeowners, relying on a theoretical programme and evidence found unreliable, and its post-proceeding variation invoices did not comply with the contractual variation mechanism and were unenforceable. The homeowners were awarded $53,068.00 and the builder's cross claim was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Home Building Dispute Concerning Residential Building Work Under the Home Building Act 1989 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Homeowners' application allowed in the amount of $53,068.00; builder's cross claim dismissed; costs submissions timetable set.
Legal Topics
['defective or Incomplete Residential Building Work' 'contract Variations' 'ultra Floor Slabs' 'delay Damages' 'extension of Time Notices' 'contract Interpretation' 'costs Submissions']
['home Building' 'building and Construction' 'contract' 'consumer Law'] ['defective or Incomplete Residential Building Work' 'contract Variations' 'ultra Floor Slabs' 'delay Damages' 'extension of Time Notices' 'contract Interpretation' 'costs Submissions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Home Building Dispute Concerning Residential Building Work Under the Home Building Act 1989 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether and to what extent the alleged defects or incomplete work entitled the homeowners to damages.' 'Whether the cost of the Ultra Floor slabs should have been treated as a variation or borne by the builder as part of the fixed price.' 'Whether and to what extent the homeowners contributed to delay in completion of the dwelling.' 'Whether any contribution to delay amounted to breach of contract causing loss to the builder.' "Whether the builder's later variation invoices were valid and enforceable."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the contract, properly construed in light of the drawings, the KH Standard Specification and surrounding circumstances, included the Ultra Floor system, so the builder's purported Ultra Floor variation was invalid and the homeowners were entitled to reimbursement. Several defects or incomplete items were proven. The builder failed to prove actual delay caused by the homeowners, relying on a theoretical programme and evidence found unreliable, and its post-proceeding variation invoices did not comply with the contractual variation mechanism and were unenforceable. The homeowners were awarded $53,068.00 and the builder's cross claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Homeowners' application allowed in the amount of $53,068.00; builder's cross claim dismissed; costs submissions timetable set.

Orders

  • ["On the homeowners' application the builder is ordered to pay to the homeowners the amount of $53,068.00 within 28 days of the date of this order." "The builder's cross claim against the homeowners is dismissed." 'The homeowners submissions on costs, including a detailed assessment of costs setting out the...