Harding v Horticultural Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 22

Harding v Horticultural Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 22

The work supplied was not 'solid timber' as contracted, contained multiple defects, and was not performed with due care and skill in breach of statutory warranties; removal and replacement is necessary and reasonable, and a money order for damages, rather than a work order, is appropriate due to lack of evidence that the builder or sub-contractor would adequately rectify defects.

Parties
First Applicant: Michael Harding; Second Applicant: Polly Harding; Respondent: Horticultural Holdings Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Building and Construction Dispute / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Applicant succeeds
Legal Topics
Defective Work, Residential Building Claims, Statutory Warranties, Damages, Work Order Versus Money Order
Building and Construction Law Consumer Law Defective Work Residential Building Claims Statutory Warranties Damages Work Order Versus Money Order

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Harding

First Applicant

Polly Harding

Second Applicant

Horticultural Holdings Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building and Construction Dispute / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the work provided was a 'solid timber' kitchen as contracted
  2. 2 Nature and extent of defects in the kitchen installation
  3. 3 Whether repair or replacement of the kitchen is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The work supplied was not 'solid timber' as contracted, contained multiple defects, and was not performed with due care and skill in breach of statutory warranties; removal and replacement is necessary and reasonable, and a money order for damages, rather than a work order, is appropriate due to lack of evidence that the builder or sub-contractor would adequately rectify defects.

Court Disposition

Applicant succeeds

Orders

  • The respondent is to pay the applicants $84,340.87 immediately.
  • Any documents and/or submissions upon which the applicants wish to rely in relation to costs are to be provided to the Tribunal and the respondent on or before 14 February 2022.