Tony Aceti and Kerri Aceti v Irene Woods and Leonard Hugh Woods and Country Lane Garden Centre Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 214

Tony Aceti and Kerri Aceti v Irene Woods and Leonard Hugh Woods and Country Lane Garden Centre Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 214

The Tribunal had jurisdiction over that part of the owners' claim relating to defective large cement pavers, as these constitute work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulation 5(j). The first and second respondents breached the statutory warranty under section 18B(a) by failing to perform work in a proper and workmanlike manner, specifically by using inadequate reinforcement in the footings for the large cement pavers. The owners did not establish jurisdiction or factual basis for the claim regarding dwarf walls; nor did they establish a duty of care owed in tort by the third respondent or misleading and deceptive conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Building Claim / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
First and second respondents ordered to pay compensation; other relief refused.
Legal Topics
['implied Warranties' 'residential Building Work' 'statutory Warranties' 'limitation Periods' 'rectification Costs' 'duty of Care' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']
['consumer Law' 'building Law'] ['implied Warranties' 'residential Building Work' 'statutory Warranties' 'limitation Periods' 'rectification Costs' 'duty of Care' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']

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 Tribunal had jurisdiction for the building claim under the Home Building Act 1989' 'Who were the parties to the contract for building work' "Whether defective work was done by respondents and if so, which work falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction" 'Whether a duty of care in tort was owed by the third respondent' 'Whether the first and second respondents engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had jurisdiction over that part of the owners' claim relating to defective large cement pavers, as these constitute work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulation 5(j). The first and second respondents breached the statutory warranty under section 18B(a) by failing to perform work in a proper and workmanlike manner, specifically by using inadequate reinforcement in the footings for the large cement pavers. The owners did not establish jurisdiction or factual basis for the claim regarding dwarf walls; nor did they establish a duty of care owed in tort by the third respondent or misleading and deceptive conduct.

Court Disposition

First and second respondents ordered to pay compensation; other relief refused.

Orders

  • ['The first and second respondents must pay the applicants the sum of $18,531.25 within 14 days of the date of this order.' 'Either party is at liberty to make a costs application in these proceedings.' 'Any costs application pursuant to section 53 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 or regulation...