Jandson Pty Ltd v Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Limited As Trustee for Syed Family Trust and Ors [2018] NSWCATCD 5

Jandson Pty Ltd v Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Limited As Trustee for Syed Family Trust and Ors [2018] NSWCATCD 5

The builder’s preparatory work constituted residential building work under the Act. The builder did not have valid insurance, as required by sections 92 and 94, at material times. Therefore, the builder was precluded from enforcing the contract or recovering damages, but could recover a quantum meruit award if just and equitable. The Tribunal found it just and equitable to award the builder only its actual expenses ($17,930.56), not lost profits, because the builder’s conduct did not warrant full relief and the respondent derived a benefit from the expenses incurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Building Claim / Final Decision After Hearing and Submissions
Outcome
First respondent to pay $17,930.56 to the applicant. Each party to bear own costs. Claim against second respondent dismissed.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'quantum Meruit' 'guarantee and Indemnity' 'statutory Compliance']
['contract Law' 'construction Law' 'consumer Law'] ['breach of Contract' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'quantum Meruit' 'guarantee and Indemnity' 'statutory Compliance']

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 / Final Decision After Hearing and Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's claim for damages is barred due to absence of home warranty insurance under sections 92 and 94 of the Home Building Act 1989" 'Whether the builder is entitled to recover under the guarantee and indemnity' 'Whether the builder may recover on a quantum meruit basis and if so, what sum is just and equitable']

Ratio Decidendi

The builder’s preparatory work constituted residential building work under the Act. The builder did not have valid insurance, as required by sections 92 and 94, at material times. Therefore, the builder was precluded from enforcing the contract or recovering damages, but could recover a quantum meruit award if just and equitable. The Tribunal found it just and equitable to award the builder only its actual expenses ($17,930.56), not lost profits, because the builder’s conduct did not warrant full relief and the respondent derived a benefit from the expenses incurred.

Court Disposition

First respondent to pay $17,930.56 to the applicant. Each party to bear own costs. Claim against second respondent dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent shall pay $17,930.56 to the applicant immediately.' 'Each party to bear its own costs of the proceedings.']