Case Overview
This case revolves around the dispute between Robert Symes and Kim Louise Filmer (the owners) and Mick Fabar Constructions Pty Ltd (the builder), adjudicated by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The tribunal delivered its decision on 25 November 2014, addressing key issues related to Section 18B of the Home Building Act 1989.
Project Details
The building project in question involved the construction of a new house for the owners, with a total contract price of $559,909.30. The proceedings in this case were protracted, reflecting ongoing issues that arose from the project, which initially began in July 2008.
Parties Involved
The parties in this case included:
- Homeowners: Robert Symes and Kim Louise Filmer.
- Builder: Mick Fabar Constructions Pty Ltd.
Nature of the Dispute
The dispute primarily revolved around alleged breaches of statutory warranties as outlined in Section 18B of the Home Building Act. The specific warranties that were allegedly breached included:
- Defective construction of the pergola
- Improper painting of internal trims
- Inadequate installation of water storage tanks
Claim Details
The owners initially claimed a total of $65,363.45 for damages related to the identified defects and specifically sought:
- Rectification of the pergola issues
- Repainting of internal trims
- Rectification of water storage tanks
Key Findings
The tribunal found in favor of the homeowners, determining that the builder had indeed breached Section 18B warranties due to:
- Failure to execute work in a proper and workmanlike manner
- Non-compliance with the Building Code of Australia
Outcome
The tribunal ordered Mick Fabar Constructions Pty Ltd to pay the homeowners the sum of $99,304.71, which included damages awarded based on the rectification costs for the identified defects. The owners were entitled to:
- Pergola rectification costs: $28,374.01
- Painting costs: $2,050.00
- Water tank rectification: $31,836.00
Key Sections and Interpretation of the Home Building Act and Relevant Case Precedents
In this case, the tribunal interpreted Section 18B as mandating that all building work must be performed in a proper and workmanlike manner. The principles established in previous case law, such as Bellgrove v Eldridge and Tabcorp Holdings Pty Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd, emphasized that damages should reflect the cost of rectification provided those costs are reasonable and necessary.
