Soo Lim v Zelezo Pty Ltd and Alexander Ribarovski [2014] NSWCATCD 80

Soo Lim v Zelezo Pty Ltd and Alexander Ribarovski [2014] NSWCATCD 80

The Tribunal found the first respondent unlicensed and uninsured, with a contract not compliant with the HBA, precluding recovery of the outstanding contract balance. The work was seriously defective, entitling the applicant to compensation for rectification, but not for loss of rent due to lack of evidence of mitigation and because such loss was not in reasonable contemplation of the contract. The claim against the second respondent failed as statutory warranties do not transfer in the absence of a licence. The applicant was awarded compensation for rectification and costs of expert evidence.

Parties
Applicant: Soo Lim; First Respondent: Zelezo Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Alexander Ribarovski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Defective Residential Building Work and Associated Claims / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application partly allowed; orders made for compensation and costs; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Defective Residential Building Work, Consumer Building Disputes, Warranties, Statutory Compliance, Compensation, Costs, Transitional Provisions
Building and Construction Law Consumer Law Defective Residential Building Work Consumer Building Disputes Warranties Statutory Compliance Compensation Costs +1 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Soo Lim

Applicant

Zelezo Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Alexander Ribarovski

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Defective Residential Building Work and Associated Claims / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the terms of the contract for supply of building goods and services?
  2. 2 Was the respondent licensed and did the contract comply with the Home Building Act requirements?
  3. 3 Was statutory insurance in place?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the first respondent unlicensed and uninsured, with a contract not compliant with the HBA, precluding recovery of the outstanding contract balance. The work was seriously defective, entitling the applicant to compensation for rectification, but not for loss of rent due to lack of evidence of mitigation and because such loss was not in reasonable contemplation of the contract. The claim against the second respondent failed as statutory warranties do not transfer in the absence of a licence. The applicant was awarded compensation for rectification and costs of expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed; orders made for compensation and costs; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • Zelezo Pty Ltd to pay Soo Lim $24,730 on or before 30 May 2014.
  • The sum of $3,589.63 is not due or owing by Soo Lim to Zelezo Pty Ltd pursuant to the contract entered on or about 20 December 2012.