Channell v Graham [2016] NSWCATCD 80

Channell v Graham [2016] NSWCATCD 80

The applicant's claim fails because the contract between the parties did not appoint the respondent as builder but as interior decorator and construction/project manager; there was no cause of action identified for overcharging and no breach established of implied warranties under Home Building Act 1989 relevant to the respondent’s contracted scope.

Parties
Applicant: Irene Channell; Respondent: Roberta Graham
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Building Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Project Management, Implied Warranties, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Overcharging, Rectification of Works
Contract Law Building and Construction Law Contract Formation Project Management Implied Warranties Jurisdiction of Tribunal Overcharging Rectification of 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irene Channell

Applicant

Roberta Graham

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the applicant's claim a 'building claim' under the Home Building Act 1989?
  2. 2 What was the contractual relationship and obligations between the applicant and respondent?
  3. 3 Is there legal basis for overcharging/refund/restitution?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's claim fails because the contract between the parties did not appoint the respondent as builder but as interior decorator and construction/project manager; there was no cause of action identified for overcharging and no breach established of implied warranties under Home Building Act 1989 relevant to the respondent’s contracted scope.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The parties are at liberty to make a costs application.