Glen MacFadyen and Heidi MacFadyen v George Tadrosse [2014] NSWCATCD 194
The respondent failed to prove on the balance of probabilities an earlier practical completion date in November 2011. In the absence of contractual evidence, practical completion was presumed under section 3B(3)(d) of the Home Building Act 1989 to have occurred 18 months after the owner-builder permit issued on 28 July 2010, namely 27 January 2012. The application lodged on 6 December 2013 was therefore within the two-year warranty period and the Tribunal had jurisdiction. On the defects claim, only those items established by admissible and persuasive evidence, concessions, or adequate expert reasoning as breaches of the statutory warranties were allowed. The allowed rectification items...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Building Claim for Alleged Breach of Statutory Warranties Under the Home Building Act 1989 / Principal Judgment After Hearing in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales
- Outcome
- Respondent's jurisdiction/time defence dismissed; applicants awarded $18,070.93 immediately; liberty granted for costs applications to be determined on the papers.
- Legal Topics
- ['statutory Warranties' 'owner Builder Work' 'limitation Period for Building Claims' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'building Defects' 'expert Evidence' 'costs Applications']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Building Claim for Alleged Breach of Statutory Warranties Under the Home Building Act 1989 / Principal Judgment After Hearing in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under section 48K(7) of the Home Building Act 1989 because the building claim was lodged after the warranty period in section 18E.' 'Whether practical completion occurred in November 2011 as asserted by the owner builder or on the presumed date under section 3B(3)(d) of the Home Building Act 1989.' 'Whether the claimed items constituted breaches of the statutory warranties implied by sections 18B and 18C of the Home Building Act 1989.' "What amount of rectification damages, builder's margin and GST should be awarded." 'How any costs application should be dealt with.']
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent failed to prove on the balance of probabilities an earlier practical completion date in November 2011. In the absence of contractual evidence, practical completion was presumed under section 3B(3)(d) of the Home Building Act 1989 to have occurred 18 months after the owner-builder permit issued on 28 July 2010, namely 27 January 2012. The application lodged on 6 December 2013 was therefore within the two-year warranty period and the Tribunal had jurisdiction. On the defects claim, only those items established by admissible and persuasive evidence, concessions, or adequate expert reasoning as breaches of the statutory warranties were allowed. The allowed rectification items...
Court Disposition
Respondent's jurisdiction/time defence dismissed; applicants awarded $18,070.93 immediately; liberty granted for costs applications to be determined on the papers.
Orders
- ["The respondent's defence that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear this building claim pursuant to section 48(K)(7) of the Home Building Act 1989, is dismissed." 'The respondent must pay the applicants the sum of $18,070.93 immediately.' 'Either party is at liberty to make a costs application in...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment