Pawar v Willoughby Homes Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 161

Pawar v Willoughby Homes Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 161

The Tribunal found that, although the builder contributed to some delays, the owner's conduct caused or significantly contributed to the delays that prevented rectification within the original 12-week period. The builder remained ready, willing and able to do the required work, and it would be unjust to grant the owner a money order in circumstances where he contributed to non-compliance. Accordingly, a further work order is appropriate, with additional safeguards (detailed schedule, method statement, independent expert, etc.) to ensure completion. Only the claim for carpet replacement is allowed as a money order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Renewal Proceeding (building Claim) / Final Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Work order granted; limited money order for carpet replacement; directions for further applications as to costs.
Legal Topics
['home Building Defects' 'work Order Vs Money Order' 'renewal of Proceedings' 'case Management' 'expert Evidence' 'enforcement of Tribunal Orders']
['building and Construction' 'contract Law' 'consumer Law'] ['home Building Defects' 'work Order Vs Money Order' 'renewal of Proceedings' 'case Management' 'expert Evidence' 'enforcement of Tribunal Orders']

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

Renewal Proceeding (building Claim) / Final Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a work order or money order should be granted due to non-compliance with prior orders' 'Who caused the delay in completion of rectification work' 'Appropriate remedy for non-compliance with consent orders']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, although the builder contributed to some delays, the owner's conduct caused or significantly contributed to the delays that prevented rectification within the original 12-week period. The builder remained ready, willing and able to do the required work, and it would be unjust to grant the owner a money order in circumstances where he contributed to non-compliance. Accordingly, a further work order is appropriate, with additional safeguards (detailed schedule, method statement, independent expert, etc.) to ensure completion. Only the claim for carpet replacement is allowed as a money order.

Court Disposition

Work order granted; limited money order for carpet replacement; directions for further applications as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The builder is to carry out rectification work in a proper and workmanlike manner in relation to defects identified as Items 1 to 10 (inclusive) and 25 in Mr O'Donnell's 24 June 2019 report." "Mr O'Donnell (or his nominee if unavailable) to act as independent expert overseeing rectification work." 'All...