Mohammed & Sheikh v Ausko Building and Construction Pty Ltd & Augustus & Ravikumar & Roshan & Stanley [2015] NSWCATCD 107

Mohammed & Sheikh v Ausko Building and Construction Pty Ltd & Augustus & Ravikumar & Roshan & Stanley [2015] NSWCATCD 107

The applicants were successors in title and the second, third and fourth respondents were developers within the Home Building Act 1989. The applicants' expert evidence identified defective or incomplete residential building work and was not contradicted by any expert opinion from the respondents. After assessing each disputed Scott Schedule item, the Tribunal accepted the expert evidence for most items, adjusted some amounts, and found the second, third and fourth respondents liable under the statutory warranties for the reasonable rectification costs and necessary expert costs, jointly and severally.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Home Building Claim in the Consumer and Commercial Division Concerning Statutory Warranties and Defective Residential Building Work / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed in part against the second, third and fourth respondents, who were ordered to pay rectification costs and expert costs jointly and severally.
Legal Topics
['successor in Title' 'statutory Warranties' 'residential Building Work' 'developers' 'defective Work' 'rectification Costs']
['home Building' 'consumer and Commercial' 'property' 'building Defects'] ['successor in Title' 'statutory Warranties' 'residential Building Work' 'developers' 'defective Work' 'rectification Costs']

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 Claim in the Consumer and Commercial Division Concerning Statutory Warranties and Defective Residential Building Work / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants were successors in title entitled to the benefit of statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989.' 'Whether the second, third and fourth respondents were developers within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989.' 'Whether the residential building work at the property was defective or incomplete.' 'What was the reasonable cost of rectification and whether expert report costs should be paid by the respondents.' 'Whether liability should be apportioned between respondents or imposed jointly and severally on the second, third and fourth respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were successors in title and the second, third and fourth respondents were developers within the Home Building Act 1989. The applicants' expert evidence identified defective or incomplete residential building work and was not contradicted by any expert opinion from the respondents. After assessing each disputed Scott Schedule item, the Tribunal accepted the expert evidence for most items, adjusted some amounts, and found the second, third and fourth respondents liable under the statutory warranties for the reasonable rectification costs and necessary expert costs, jointly and severally.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part against the second, third and fourth respondents, who were ordered to pay rectification costs and expert costs jointly and severally.

Orders

  • ['The Second, Third and Fourth respondents are to pay the applicants the sum of $55,951.40 within one month of the date of these orders.' 'The Second, Third and Fourth respondents are to pay the costs of the applicants expert for preparation of reports and attendance at the Hearing in the assessed sum of $7480.00...