Ultimo Developments Pty Ltd v Wilson [2025] NSWCATAP 40

Ultimo Developments Pty Ltd v Wilson [2025] NSWCATAP 40

The Tribunal did not err in finding that the floorboards were installed without due care and skill; it correctly considered both the evidence of noncompliance with the manufacturer's installation guide and the lack of sub-base remediation, and was entitled to regard the expert's concessions in oral evidence. The Tribunal was aware of the status of the Installation Guide and did not treat it as determinative. No error of law occurred.

Parties
Applicant: Ultimo Developments Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Françoise Wilson; Second Respondent: Matthew Noyce
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Warranties, Due Care and Skill, Expert Evidence, Breach of Contract, Rectification Costs
Building and Construction Consumer Law Statutory Warranties Due Care and Skill Expert Evidence Breach of Contract Rectification Costs

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ultimo Developments Pty Ltd

Applicant

Françoise Wilson

First Respondent

Matthew Noyce

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in finding that the floorboards were installed without due care and skill by proceeding as if the content of the obligation of due care and skill was determined by the content of an installation guide for the floorboards
  2. 2 Whether Tribunal erred in finding that builder's expert made a concession at the Tribunal hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in finding that the floorboards were installed without due care and skill; it correctly considered both the evidence of noncompliance with the manufacturer's installation guide and the lack of sub-base remediation, and was entitled to regard the expert's concessions in oral evidence. The Tribunal was aware of the status of the Installation Guide and did not treat it as determinative. No error of law occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The preliminary view of the Appeal Panel is that the appellant should pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or as assessed.