Withers v Alexander [2016] NSWCATCD 28

Withers v Alexander [2016] NSWCATCD 28

The respondent breached contract requirements under the Home Building Act 1989 by missing license information, performed defective work, and the applicants are entitled to a partial refund and compensation for defective work; a work order is not appropriate due to antagonism.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
the respondent is to pay the applicants the sum of $2,836.27, on or before 13 May 2016
Legal Topics
['home Building' 'incomplete Work' 'defective Work']
['consumer Law'] ['home Building' 'incomplete Work' 'defective Work']

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

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['whether the respondent was properly licensed to carry out the bathroom renovation' 'whether the respondent breached the Home Building Act 1998 regarding contract requirements' 'whether the respondent failed to properly handle asbestos' "whether the respondent's work was defective or incomplete" 'whether the applicants were entitled to a refund or compensation']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent breached contract requirements under the Home Building Act 1989 by missing license information, performed defective work, and the applicants are entitled to a partial refund and compensation for defective work; a work order is not appropriate due to antagonism.

Court Disposition

the respondent is to pay the applicants the sum of $2,836.27, on or before 13 May 2016

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to pay the applicants the sum of $2,836.27, on or before 13 May 2016.']