Simmons v Broken Hill Service Station Limited Trading as Bromson Energy [2021] NSWCATCD 147

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Simmons v Broken Hill Service Station Limited Trading as Bromson Energy [2021] NSWCATCD 147 Hearing dates: 22 December 2021 Date of orders: 8 February 2021 Decision date: 08 February 2021 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: D Moujalli, Senior Member Decision: The Tribunal orders that the Application is dismissed. Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – Australian consumer law – solar system – home building claim – whether defect is major defect - due care and skill – warranty claim – misleading conduct Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (NSW) Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: Ireland v WG Riverview Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 307; 101 NSWLR 658 Let's Go Adventures Pty Ltd v Barrett [2017] NSWCA 243 Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330 Metropolitan Gas Co v Melbourne Corporation (1924) 35 CLR 186 Wade v J Daniels and Associates Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 170 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Stephen Simmons (Applicant)

Broken Hill Service Station Limited Trading as Bromson Energy (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)

M Bromson (Respondent) File Number(s): HB 21/43528 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. On 20 October 2021 the applicant, Stephen Simmons, lodged an application with the Tribunal (the Application). The Application seeks an order for compensation in the sum of $6,785 against the respondent in respect of the failure of a solar energy system supplied by the respondent to the applicant. 2. In a document subsequently provided by the applicant and dated 28 November 2021, the amount of the claim has been revised to $6,050 comprising: $4,692 by way of refund of the amount paid for the solar energy system; $240 for the removal of solar panels; $768 for loss of solar energy; and $350 for the cost of "electricity running to solar panels". 3. The Application indicated that the applicant intended to rely upon "10 years warranty" and "statutory warranty". At the hearing of the matter on 22 December 2021, the applicant stated that he also relied upon sections 18 and 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (the ACL), being Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). 4. At the hearing on 22 December 2021, the applicant represented himself and Matthew Bronsom (being a director of the respondent) represented the respondent. The hearing proceeded by telephone. At the hearing each party was given an opportunity to present their evidence, ask questions of the other party and make submissions. Both Mr Simmons and Mr Bronsom did this in a respectful manner and the Tribunal is grateful for their co-operation in this respect.