Micevski v SK Roofing Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 195

Micevski v SK Roofing Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 195

The overcharging claim was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the building goods and services were supplied between December 2017 and January 2019 and the claim was lodged on 8 April 2022, more than 3 years after supply. In any event, the evidence did not establish that the parties' agreement was based on the 2014 quotation. For the defects claim, non-major defects were out of time, the applicant's expert evidence was limited and largely withdrawn, and the Tribunal adopted the respondent expert's findings and scope of work. Because the applicant sought to have the leaks fixed and no reason was shown why a work order was inappropriate, the respondent was ordered to perform the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Building Claim; Statutory Warranty Claim / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part by making a work order; balance of the application dismissed; costs timetable set if costs are sought.
Legal Topics
['residential Building Work' 'statutory Warranties' 'defective Roofing Work' 'major Defects' 'overcharging Allegation' 'work Order' 'tribunal Jurisdiction']
['building and Construction' 'home Building' 'consumer Law'] ['residential Building Work' 'statutory Warranties' 'defective Roofing Work' 'major Defects' 'overcharging Allegation' 'work Order' 'tribunal Jurisdiction']

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

Building Claim; Statutory Warranty Claim / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What were the terms of the agreement?' 'Is the work defective, and have the statutory warranties been breached?' 'If the work is defective, is the defect a major defect as defined?' 'If so, what is required to rectify the defect, and at what cost?' 'Should the Tribunal make a money order or a work order?']

Ratio Decidendi

The overcharging claim was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the building goods and services were supplied between December 2017 and January 2019 and the claim was lodged on 8 April 2022, more than 3 years after supply. In any event, the evidence did not establish that the parties' agreement was based on the 2014 quotation. For the defects claim, non-major defects were out of time, the applicant's expert evidence was limited and largely withdrawn, and the Tribunal adopted the respondent expert's findings and scope of work. Because the applicant sought to have the leaks fixed and no reason was shown why a work order was inappropriate, the respondent was ordered to perform the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part by making a work order; balance of the application dismissed; costs timetable set if costs are sought.

Orders

  • ['SK Roofing Pty Ltd is, on or before 30 November 2022, to undertake, in a proper and workmanlike manner, the scope of work set out in the report of Quest Associates dated 8 September 2022 at paragraphs 9.1.5, 9.2.5, 9.4.5, 9.5.5, 9.7.5, 9.9.5, 9.10.5 and 9.11.5.' 'The balance of the application is dismissed.' 'If...