Nick Manevski v Ben Jennings [2014] NSWCATCD 179

Nick Manevski v Ben Jennings [2014] NSWCATCD 179

The claim was not out of time because the residential building contract predated the commencement of the amendment to section 18E and the applicable warranty period was seven years from completion of the work. The Tribunal preferred Mr Maglis's expert evidence to Mr Campbell's evidence and found that the respondent failed to batten the floors to level in the lounge room, study, entry and bedroom 3, thereby breaching the warranty in section 18B(a) of the Home Building Act 1989. The applicant proved items 1 to 3 of the scott schedule in the amount of $15,907.38, but failed to prove items 4 to 21 because they lacked adequate expert or persuasive evidentiary support or a demonstrated...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Building Claim for Alleged Defective Residential Building Work and Work Allegedly Contracted for But Not Carried Out / Final Hearing and Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $15,907.38 and the remaining claimed items were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['statutory Warranties Under the Home Building Act 1989' 'defective Residential Building Work' 'warranty Period and Limitation' 'owner Builder Claim' 'expert Evidence' 'costs Applications']
['residential Building' 'consumer and Tenancy Tribunal Procedure' 'contract'] ['statutory Warranties Under the Home Building Act 1989' 'defective Residential Building Work' 'warranty Period and Limitation' 'owner Builder Claim' 'expert Evidence' 'costs Applications']

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

Building Claim for Alleged Defective Residential Building Work and Work Allegedly Contracted for But Not Carried Out / Final Hearing and Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application based on breach of statutory warranties was brought out of time.' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to damages for his own labour.' 'Whether the respondent breached the statutory warranty in section 18B(a) of the Home Building Act 1989 by failing to perform work in a proper and workmanlike manner.' 'Whether the applicant established claims for defective work or work allegedly not carried out beyond the expert-supported items.']

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was not out of time because the residential building contract predated the commencement of the amendment to section 18E and the applicable warranty period was seven years from completion of the work. The Tribunal preferred Mr Maglis's expert evidence to Mr Campbell's evidence and found that the respondent failed to batten the floors to level in the lounge room, study, entry and bedroom 3, thereby breaching the warranty in section 18B(a) of the Home Building Act 1989. The applicant proved items 1 to 3 of the scott schedule in the amount of $15,907.38, but failed to prove items 4 to 21 because they lacked adequate expert or persuasive evidentiary support or a demonstrated...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $15,907.38 and the remaining claimed items were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The respondent Ben Jennings must pay the applicant Nick Manevski the sum of $15,907.38 within 14 days of the date of this order.' 'Either party is at liberty to make a costs application in these proceedings.' 'Any costs application pursuant to section 53 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 or...