Lauer & Ng v Corner [2015] NSWCATCD 114

Lauer & Ng v Corner [2015] NSWCATCD 114

The Tribunal found that Mr Kim was not involved in the project, Mr Park was involved but not as the builder, and Mr Corner was the moving party who produced and signed the contracts and was the builder in a contractual sense. Mr Corner misrepresented his position, qualifications and experience and breached s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The applicants proved entitlement to recover $24,000 paid to Mr Corner as deposits for kitchen and windows that were not delivered, and $2,040 for defective works. However, because works to the value of $26,000 had been completed, ordering return of those payments would unjustly enrich the applicants, and no further damage was proved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Home Building and Australian Consumer Law Claim in the Consumer and Commercial Division / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed in part; Ike Corner is to pay $26,040.00 to the applicants within 28 days of the orders.
Legal Topics
['identity of Builder' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'residential Building Work' 'unlicensed Contracting' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'restitution' 'damages for Defective Works']
['administrative Law' 'home Building' 'consumer Law'] ['identity of Builder' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'residential Building Work' 'unlicensed Contracting' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'restitution' 'damages for Defective Works']

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

Home Building and Australian Consumer Law Claim in the Consumer and Commercial Division / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the Australian Consumer Law claim in connection with the Home Building Act proceedings.' 'Whether Mr Corner engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether Mr Corner was the contracting builder for the purposes of the Home Building Act 1989 despite not personally performing the building work.' 'Whether the applicants were entitled to restitution of all payments made, or only recovery of deposits for undelivered kitchen and windows and damages for defective works.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Mr Kim was not involved in the project, Mr Park was involved but not as the builder, and Mr Corner was the moving party who produced and signed the contracts and was the builder in a contractual sense. Mr Corner misrepresented his position, qualifications and experience and breached s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The applicants proved entitlement to recover $24,000 paid to Mr Corner as deposits for kitchen and windows that were not delivered, and $2,040 for defective works. However, because works to the value of $26,000 had been completed, ordering return of those payments would unjustly enrich the applicants, and no further damage was proved.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; Ike Corner is to pay $26,040.00 to the applicants within 28 days of the orders.

Orders

  • ['Ike Corner is to pay $24,000 to the applicants within 28 days for deposits paid for the kitchen and windows.' 'Ike Corner is to pay $2,040 to the applicants within 28 days for defective works.' 'Ike Corner is to pay the sum of $26,040.00 to the applicants within 28 days of the date of these orders.']