Patel v Southern Cross Joinery Pty Limited [2022] NSWCATCD 162

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Patel v Southern Cross Joinery Pty Limited [2022] NSWCATCD 162 Hearing dates: 18 March 2022 Date of orders: 01 September 2022 Decision date: 01 September 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: M Tyson, Senior Member Decision: The respondent is to pay the applicant $378.95 immediately and the application is otherwise dismissed. Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) - defective work Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), ss. 18B, 18E(1)(b), 48K(1), 48MA and 48O(1)(1). Cases Cited: Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 37 Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 187 ALR 92 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Nandini Patel (Applicant) Southern Cross Joinery Pty Limited (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (self-represented) S Baalbaki, Managing Director (Respondent) File Number(s): HB 21/34817 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. This proceeding involves a dispute arising out of a contract to install and deliver cabinetry for a kitchen at a residential property at Dawes Point, New South Wales. The applicant seeks an order that the respondent pay her $27,000.00. The application was heard in the Tribunal on 18 March 2022 by way of an audio-visual linked hearing. Each of the parties was self-represented.

The applicant's claim 1. The applicant's claim is that the respondent, in supplying and installing the cabinetry for the kitchen, did residential building work for her which was not in accordance with the plans and specifications set out in the contract, in breach of a statutory warranty implied into the contract by the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) s. 18B(1)(a). With respect to kitchen cabinet drawers beside the refrigerator in the applicant's kitchen, the applicant's claim is that the respondent did residential building work for her which was not reasonably fit for a specified purpose, in breach of a statutory warranty implied into the contract by the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) s. 18B(1)(f)("the Act"). 2. There are a number of matters in particular about which the applicant complained, and they are dealt with below in these reasons. 3. Based on the way the parties presented their case at the hearing, the principal issues in the proceedings were: (a) what version of plans and specifications for the kitchen had been agreed between the parties, (b) had the respondent delivered a kitchen according to the specifications and finishes identified in the contract, and (c) if the respondent had not done so, what is the quantum of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.