Stevenson v Ashton [2018] NSWCATCD 25

Stevenson v Ashton [2018] NSWCATCD 25

The Tribunal found the defects in the balcony waterproofing and wall cladding to be major defects within the meaning of s18E(4) of the Home Building Act, thereby bringing them within jurisdiction and the statutory warranty period. The applicant did not have full knowledge of the defects at purchase. Rectification by the respondent was not appropriate given circumstances; an order for monetary compensation for rectification was just and practical.

Parties
Applicant: Phillip Stevenson; Respondent: Jacqueline Ashton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Building Claim / Final Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Respondent to pay applicant monetary compensation; potential further order for costs subject to submissions.
Legal Topics
Statutory Warranties (home Building Act), Defective Building Work, Major Defects, Rectification Orders, Jurisdictional Time Limits, Obvious Defects and Knowledge, Order for Payment Vs Rectification, Costs in Tribunal Proceedings
Building and Construction Law Consumer Law Statutory Warranties (home Building Act) Defective Building Work Major Defects Rectification Orders Jurisdictional Time Limits Obvious Defects and Knowledge +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Stevenson

Applicant

Jacqueline Ashton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Claim / Final Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory warranty claims were within time under s18E of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether alleged building defects constituted 'major defects' under s18E
  3. 3 Whether applicant had 'full knowledge' of defects at purchase impacting causation/loss

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the defects in the balcony waterproofing and wall cladding to be major defects within the meaning of s18E(4) of the Home Building Act, thereby bringing them within jurisdiction and the statutory warranty period. The applicant did not have full knowledge of the defects at purchase. Rectification by the respondent was not appropriate given circumstances; an order for monetary compensation for rectification was just and practical.

Court Disposition

Respondent to pay applicant monetary compensation; potential further order for costs subject to submissions.

Orders

  • The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $42,317.77 immediately.
  • Either party may file written submissions within 14 days seeking an order in relation to the costs of the proceedings.