Filliston v Quickspec Modular Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 169

Filliston v Quickspec Modular Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 169

The evidence did not prove that the applicant's contract was with Quickspec Modular Pty Ltd, because the company name was not shown to have been brought to her attention before work commenced; the contract was with Benjamin Ralph Blanchette. Although the applicant purchased skylights and flashings that were not fit for the roof pitch, the second respondent, as an experienced roofer, installed them without obtaining written instructions, so no s 18F defence was available. The installation breached the s 18B(1) statutory warranties because the work was not done with due care and skill and the materials used were not suitable for purpose. The statutory preference for rectification by the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Building Claim Concerning Residential Building Work Under the Home Building Act 1989 (nsw) / Hearing and Principal Judgment; Notice of Order Amended Under Section 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Outcome
Application dismissed against the first respondent; money order made against the second respondent for $34,360.19 payable within 28 days; timetable set for costs submissions.
Legal Topics
['defective Roofing Work' 'statutory Warranties' 'whether Contract Was With Individual or Company' 'reasonable Cost of Rectification' 'money Order Instead of Work Order' 'expert Evidence' 'costs']
['building and Construction' 'consumer Law' 'residential Building Work' 'contract Law'] ['defective Roofing Work' 'statutory Warranties' 'whether Contract Was With Individual or Company' 'reasonable Cost of Rectification' 'money Order Instead of Work Order' 'expert Evidence' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Building Claim Concerning Residential Building Work Under the Home Building Act 1989 (nsw) / Hearing and Principal Judgment; Notice of Order Amended Under Section 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant contracted with Quickspec Modular Pty Ltd or Benjamin Ralph Blanchette.' 'Whether the roofing and skylight work breached statutory warranties under s 18B(1) of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW).' 'Whether any defence under s 18F of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) was available because the applicant supplied or insisted on skylights and flashings.' 'Whether rectification by the responsible party was the preferred and appropriate outcome under s 48MA of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), or whether a money order should be made.' 'What was the reasonable cost of rectification.' 'Whether the claims for painting and removal/refitting of the solar hot water facility were proved.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not prove that the applicant's contract was with Quickspec Modular Pty Ltd, because the company name was not shown to have been brought to her attention before work commenced; the contract was with Benjamin Ralph Blanchette. Although the applicant purchased skylights and flashings that were not fit for the roof pitch, the second respondent, as an experienced roofer, installed them without obtaining written instructions, so no s 18F defence was available. The installation breached the s 18B(1) statutory warranties because the work was not done with due care and skill and the materials used were not suitable for purpose. The statutory preference for rectification by the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed against the first respondent; money order made against the second respondent for $34,360.19 payable within 28 days; timetable set for costs submissions.

Orders

  • ['As against the first respondent, Quickspec Modular Pty Ltd, the application is dismissed.' 'The second respondent, Benjamin Ralph Blanchette, is to pay the applicant, Zoe Filliston, $34,360.19 within 28 days.' 'Any submissions in support of an application for costs (not exceeding five pages), together with any...