Tuck v White [2015] NSWCATCD 126

Tuck v White [2015] NSWCATCD 126

A contract was formed for roof restoration repointing; while some aspects of the work lacked due care and skill, the defects found were limited. Considering the scope and evidence, damages are assessed as $550.00 to be deducted, and the respondent is entitled to the balance owed for the work performed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim / Final Decision
Outcome
Applicant to pay respondent $2,327.60 in instalments.
Legal Topics
['home Building Work' 'due Care and Skill' 'quantum of Damages']
['consumer Law' 'contract Law'] ['home Building Work' 'due Care and Skill' 'quantum of Damages']

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

Consumer Claim / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a contract was formed between the parties' 'Whether services were provided with due care and skill' 'Appropriate quantum of damages for defective work']

Ratio Decidendi

A contract was formed for roof restoration repointing; while some aspects of the work lacked due care and skill, the defects found were limited. Considering the scope and evidence, damages are assessed as $550.00 to be deducted, and the respondent is entitled to the balance owed for the work performed.

Court Disposition

Applicant to pay respondent $2,327.60 in instalments.

Orders

  • ['The consumer Meagan Tuck is to pay the contractor David Glenn White the sum of $2,327.60 pursuant to section 8 (2) (b) Consumer Claims Act by instalments of $1,163.80 per fortnight first payment 9 October 2015.']