Micevski v SK Roofing Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 195

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Micevski v SK Roofing Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATCD 195 Hearing dates: 12 September 2022 Date of orders: 04 October 2022 Decision date: 04 October 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: K Ross, Senior Member Decision: 1. SK Roofing Pty Ltd is, on or before 30 November 2022, to undertake, in a proper and workmanlike manner, the scope of work set out in the report of Quest Associates dated 8 September 2022 at paragraphs 9.1.5, 9.2.5, 9.4.5, 9.5.5, 9.7.5, 9.9.5, 9.10.5 and 9.11.5. 2. The balance of the application is dismissed. 3. If either party seeks a cost order, that party is to give to the Tribunal and the other party the application for costs and submissions in support by 25 October 2022. 4. The other party is to give to the Tribunal and the other party any submissions in reply by 15 November 2022. 5. The submissions must address whether a hearing of the cost applications can be dispensed with under s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Catchwords: BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION: Home Building – Statutory warranty claim Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 Cases Cited: Chouhan v Morrison Homes Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 155 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bobi Micevski (Applicant) SK Roofing Pty Ltd (Respondent) File Number(s): HB 22/15567 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application 1. This claim arises from roofing building work carried out by the respondent for the applicant. The applicant alleges breaches of the statutory warranties in respect of the work carried out and says that he has been overcharged. Initially he sought the sum of $20,931.00 but amended his claim to seek $33,654.00. 2. The respondent says that the amount claimed is excessive. He opposes the claim for overcharging and provides an alternative scope of work to rectify the defects complained of. 3. Both parties relied on expert evidence. The applicant's expert attended the hearing whilst the respondent's expert did not. The applicant's expert conceded that he had not been able to go onto the roof because of health issues and deferred to the respondent's expert in respect of several matters, withdrawing the claims in his report.