Bailey v Plasterfix Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 140

Bailey v Plasterfix Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 140

The Appeal Panel found it was not clear that the Tribunal had expressly dealt with the defective work claim. On the evidence, including email correspondence, it was appropriate to conclude there was some defective work requiring rectification. However, the onus was on Mr Bailey to prove the extent and reasonable cost of rectification. The Panel accepted $400 as a reasonable deduction based on the respondent's un-rebutted offer, rejecting the higher amount sought by Mr Bailey for lack of substantiation.

Parties
Appellant: Jimmy Bailey; Respondent: Plasterfix Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Appeal Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; otherwise dismissed
Legal Topics
Defective Work, Onus of Proof, Reasonable Cost of Rectification
Consumer Law Building and Construction Defective Work Onus of Proof Reasonable Cost of Rectification

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jimmy Bailey

Appellant

Plasterfix Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal / Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal addressed the defective work claim by Mr Bailey against Plasterfix
  2. 2 Whether there was defective work and if so, what was the reasonable cost to rectify

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel found it was not clear that the Tribunal had expressly dealt with the defective work claim. On the evidence, including email correspondence, it was appropriate to conclude there was some defective work requiring rectification. However, the onus was on Mr Bailey to prove the extent and reasonable cost of rectification. The Panel accepted $400 as a reasonable deduction based on the respondent's un-rebutted offer, rejecting the higher amount sought by Mr Bailey for lack of substantiation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; otherwise dismissed

Orders

  • As to the sum of $400, the appeal is allowed.
  • The appeal is otherwise dismissed.