Sasa Zecevic v Mohammed Abdulrahim [2014] NSWCATCD 212

Sasa Zecevic v Mohammed Abdulrahim [2014] NSWCATCD 212

The applicant was entitled to the statutory warranties as immediate successor in title to an owner-builder, but the Tribunal preferred Mr Daniels' expert evidence over Mr Strbac's evidence because it was based on specialised knowledge, factual assumptions, and recognised costing guides. The proven defects were limited to areas of drummy render requiring rectification; alleged rising damp, structural cracking, and broader repainting or paving-related costs were not established as recoverable against the respondent. Damages were therefore assessed at $4,389.00.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Building Claim Pursuant to the Home Building Act 1989 / De Novo Rehearing After District Court Appeal Allowed and Remitted; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; respondent ordered to pay $4,389.00 and costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['residential Building Work' 'statutory Warranties' 'owner Builder' 'defective Render' 'rising Damp' 'expert Evidence' 'rectification Damages']
['building and Construction' 'consumer and Commercial' 'home Building'] ['residential Building Work' 'statutory Warranties' 'owner Builder' 'defective Render' 'rising Damp' 'expert Evidence' 'rectification 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

Building Claim Pursuant to the Home Building Act 1989 / De Novo Rehearing After District Court Appeal Allowed and Remitted; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant, as immediate successor in title to an owner-builder, was entitled to the benefit of the statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989.' 'Whether the respondent breached the statutory warranties in relation to external render, alleged rising damp, cracking and drummy render at the premises.' 'Which expert evidence should be preferred in determining the existence and extent of defects and the cost of rectification.' 'What amount of damages should be awarded for proven defective work.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was entitled to the statutory warranties as immediate successor in title to an owner-builder, but the Tribunal preferred Mr Daniels' expert evidence over Mr Strbac's evidence because it was based on specialised knowledge, factual assumptions, and recognised costing guides. The proven defects were limited to areas of drummy render requiring rectification; alleged rising damp, structural cracking, and broader repainting or paving-related costs were not established as recoverable against the respondent. Damages were therefore assessed at $4,389.00.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; respondent ordered to pay $4,389.00 and costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $4,389.00 on or before 15 November 2014.' 'Costs reserved.' 'The applicant may make written submissions as to costs by filing those submissions with the Tribunal and serving a copy on the respondent within 14 days of the decision date.' 'The respondent may make...