Woolley v Johns & Rogers Pty Limited [2016] NSWCATCD 16

Woolley v Johns & Rogers Pty Limited [2016] NSWCATCD 16

The builder breached statutory warranties by failing to construct the façade wall with necessary control joints and with a suitable reflective paint, by failing to seal internal plywood flooring, and by installing an unsuitable external door, contrary to the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). Oral warnings or following the owner's instructions are not a defence unless contrary written advice is given as required by s 18F. The alleged requirement for a dry storage area under the deck was not within the contractual scope, and the applicant did not establish a breach relating to waterproofing under the deck. Rectification costs were assessed on the basis of credible expert...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Building Claim / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Applicant succeeds in part; respondent to pay applicant.
Legal Topics
['statutory Warranties' 'defective Work' 'scope of Works' 'section 18 F Defence' 'rectification of Building Defects']
['home Building Law' 'consumer Law'] ['statutory Warranties' 'defective Work' 'scope of Works' 'section 18 F Defence' 'rectification of Building Defects']

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 / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the builder breached statutory warranties under Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)' 'Whether s 18F Home Building Act 1989 provides the only defence for a builder' 'Whether the builder followed the homeowner’s instructions contrary to written advice as a defence' 'Scope of works and whether the contract required provision of dry storage area under the deck' 'Appropriate method and quantum for rectification of defects']

Ratio Decidendi

The builder breached statutory warranties by failing to construct the façade wall with necessary control joints and with a suitable reflective paint, by failing to seal internal plywood flooring, and by installing an unsuitable external door, contrary to the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). Oral warnings or following the owner's instructions are not a defence unless contrary written advice is given as required by s 18F. The alleged requirement for a dry storage area under the deck was not within the contractual scope, and the applicant did not establish a breach relating to waterproofing under the deck. Rectification costs were assessed on the basis of credible expert...

Court Disposition

Applicant succeeds in part; respondent to pay applicant.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $17,496.05 immediately.' 'If either party intends to make an application for costs, applicant to provide documents and submissions by 26 February 2016.' 'Respondent to provide any documents and submissions on costs by 18 March 2016.' 'The issue of costs will be...