Liang v Jasta Constructions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 364

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Liang v Jasta Constructions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 364 Hearing dates: 17 October 2022 Date of orders: 17 November 2022 Decision date: 17 November 2022 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: G Blake AM SC, Senior Member G Curtin SC, Senior Member Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Leave to appeal to the extent it may be necessary is refused. Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — Building dispute — no alleged errors identified or apparent – no substance to the appeal – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), Sch 4, cl 12(1)(c) Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Chenwenyi Liang (Appellant) Jasta Constructions Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Appellant (Self-represented) J Arairo (Project Manager) (Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/00230973 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Date of Decision: 3 August 2022 Before: R Titterton OAM, Senior Member File Number(s): HB 22/17663

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. In this appeal the appellant ("Owner"), assisted by an interpreter, appeals from the Tribunal's decision ordering her to pay to the respondent ("Builder") $64,376.63 being the amount found to be owed under a home building contract entered into between the parties and dated 1 February 2021. That order was made in proceedings commenced by the Builder against the Owner for those monies. 2. Save for one matter, the Owner's complaints on appeal raised matters which would be appropriate in proceedings commenced by the Owner against the Builder but are not relevant (as a defence) to the proceedings from which this appeal has been brought. We shall describe these complaints as "cross-claim issues" for ease of reference and because they were similarly described in the Tribunal's decision and the transcript of the hearing. 3. The remaining matter, which was relevant on this appeal and in the proceedings before the Tribunal at first instance, was whether the building work was completed. Before the Tribunal the Builder led credible evidence (which was accepted) that the work was completed, and the Owner led no evidence at all. In those circumstances the result of the proceedings at first instance was inevitable. 4. No error of law nor any other error which might have justified a grant of leave to appeal was identified by the appellant nor was apparent to us from our reading of the material. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.