Dunn & Pilcher Constructions Pty Ltd v Woodos Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 347

Dunn & Pilcher Constructions Pty Ltd v Woodos Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 347

The appeal was dismissed because the Tribunal sufficiently identified the subcontractual scope of work, implicitly found that the Respondent had not breached the statutory warranties in s 18B, and was entitled on the evidence to conclude that the Appellant had not proved that the defects and loss comprising item 14 were attributable to the Respondent rather than to the Appellant's own responsibilities, including the steel structure, trimming decision, balustrade and capping. The Respondent's liability was not coextensive with the Appellant's liability to the homeowners, and the Appellant failed to prove breach, causation and quantum against the Respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Home Building Act Claim by Builder Against Subcontractor / Appeal From New South Wales Civil & Administrative Tribunal, Consumer & Commercial Division Decision Dated 19 January 2021
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['statutory Warranties' 'residential Building Work' 'subcontractor Liability' 'defective Building Work' 'appeal on Error of Law' 'onus of Proof' 'costs']
['home Building' 'contract Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['statutory Warranties' 'residential Building Work' 'subcontractor Liability' 'defective Building Work' 'appeal on Error of Law' 'onus of Proof' '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

Appeal Concerning Home Building Act Claim by Builder Against Subcontractor / Appeal From New South Wales Civil & Administrative Tribunal, Consumer & Commercial Division Decision Dated 19 January 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction by failing to deal with the Appellant's pleaded claim against the Respondent for breach of statutory warranties implied by s 18B of the Home Building Act, 1989 (NSW)." "Whether the Respondent's statutory warranties as subcontractor were coextensive with the Appellant builder's statutory warranties to the homeowners." "Whether the Tribunal's findings at [369]-[377] were unreasonable or legally erroneous." 'Whether the Appellant proved that the Respondent breached contractual or statutory warranties and caused the loss attributed to defect item 14.' 'Whether the matter should be remitted if responsibility for the defective staircase work was mixed between the Appellant and Respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Tribunal sufficiently identified the subcontractual scope of work, implicitly found that the Respondent had not breached the statutory warranties in s 18B, and was entitled on the evidence to conclude that the Appellant had not proved that the defects and loss comprising item 14 were attributable to the Respondent rather than to the Appellant's own responsibilities, including the steel structure, trimming decision, balustrade and capping. The Respondent's liability was not coextensive with the Appellant's liability to the homeowners, and the Appellant failed to prove breach, causation and quantum against the Respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'If the Respondent seeks an order for costs of the appeal, submissions in support of such application must be filed and served within 21 days of the date of these orders.' 'If the Respondent seeks costs then within a further period of 21 days the Appellant is to file and serve submissions...