Case Overview
The case Absolute Tiling Solutions Pty Limited v Bonett; Bonett v Absolute Tiling Solutions Pty Limited (Medium Neutral Citation: [2021] NSWDC 475) was heard in the District Court of New South Wales on 17 August 2021, with the decision delivered on 19 August 2021. The presiding judge was P Taylor SC DCJ.
Project Details
This case revolves around a residential project in which Absolute Tiling Solutions Pty Limited was contracted for tiling work at Shaun Bonett’s property under two separate contracts.
- Type of residential work: Tiling
Parties Involved
The main parties involved in this dispute are:
- Homeowner: Shaun Bonett
- Builder: Absolute Tiling Solutions Pty Limited
- Legal Representatives:
- Finn Roache Lawyers for the plaintiff/cross-defendant
- Henry William Lawyers for the defendant/cross-claimant
Nature of the Dispute
This case involves a dispute regarding the quality of work performed and subsequent claims of defects. The homeowner alleged that the work performed by Absolute Tiling Solutions did not meet the statutory warranties as outlined in Section 18B of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW).
Specific Section 18B warranties allegedly breached:
- Warranty that the work will be done with due care and skill (s 18B(1)(a))
Types of defects claimed:
- Defects in kitchen marble benchtops
- Defects in cabana marble benchtops and table
- Defects in marble floor tiles in ground floor guest toilet
- Defects in floor tiles in bathroom 1
- Defects in swimming pool tiles
Claim Details
The plaintiff, Absolute Tiling Solutions, initiated proceedings against Shaun Bonett for unpaid work. The homeowner countered with claims regarding the defective workmanship.
- Date claim filed: 22 June 2020
- Specific remedies sought: Fair and reasonable value of the work under the principle of quantum meruit
Key Findings
The court’s determination on the breaches of Section 18B of the Home Building Act included:
- Breach of Section 18B found: Yes
- Classification of defects: Minor defects
- Determination of fault: Leave was granted to Absolute to amend its defence to the cross-claim based on the statutory limitation under s 18E
Outcome
The decision leaned in favour of the plaintiff/cross-defendant. The court ruled:
- Remedies ordered: Leave granted to file amended defence
- Costs: The plaintiff/cross-defendant must pay for any costs thrown away by reason of the amendment
Key Sections and Interpretation of the Home Building Act and Relevant Case Precedents
This case underscores the critical legal principles surrounding Section 18B of the Home Building Act.
Next Steps
For homeowners facing building disputes, consider the following steps:
- Document all interactions and work performed by the builder
- Consult with a construction law specialist to evaluate your situation and options
- Do not hesitate to initiate proceedings if you believe your rights under the Home Building Act have been violated
