Guan v Chan; Chan v Guan [2016] NSWCATCD 21

The Tribunal finds that neither Indesign Building Solutions Pty Ltd nor Mr Chan engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct within the meaning of the Fair Trading Act or Australian Consumer Law. Failure to disclose home warranty insurance requirements did not induce homeowner to contract, and there is no basis for personal liability against Mr Chan. Both applications are dismissed.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 09 March 2016
Procedural Posture: Building Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome: Both applications dismissed
Legal Topics: ['scope of Work' 'breach of Statutory Warranty' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'external Administration' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'unlicensed Builder']

['home Building Law' 'consumer Law'] ['scope of Work' 'breach of Statutory Warranty' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'external Administration' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'unlicensed Builder']

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

Procedural Posture

Building Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether Mr Chan or Indesign Building Solutions Pty Ltd is liable for damages claimed by homeowner.' 'Whether conduct of builder amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct under the Fair Trading Act and Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether failure to provide home warranty insurance or correct licensing information amounts to misleading and deceptive conduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed

Orders

['Application HB 13/38175 is dismissed.' 'Application HB 13/48856 is dismissed.']