TCM Construction Group Pty Ltd v Neich [2024] NSWCATAP 4

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: TCM Construction Group Pty Ltd v Neich [2024] NSWCATAP 4 Hearing dates: 19 December 2023 Date of orders: 08 January 2024 Decision date: 08 January 2024 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: S Westgarth, Deputy President G Ellis SC, Senior Member Decision: 1. Leave to appeal refused. 2. Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: APPEAL- appeal from orders requiring the appellant to remedy defective work-whether a question of law arises- whether there is a ground for leave to appeal to be granted-conflicting evidence of expert witnesses. Legislation Cited: Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Texts Cited: Not applicable Category: Principal judgment Parties: TCM Construction Group Pty Ltd (Appellant) Wayne Neich and Liane Neich (Respondents) Representation: (Appellant) Self-represented (Respondents) Self-represented File Number(s): 2023/00290075 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: New South Wales Civil & Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer & Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 18 August 2023 Before: M Tibbey (Senior Member) File Number(s): HB 23/16154

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. This appeal arises out of a decision published to the parties on 17 August 2023 (and amended on 18 August 2023) when the Tribunal was exercising its jurisdiction under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (the HB Act). We will refer to the decision under appeal as the "Decision". 2. Proceedings were commenced in the Consumer & Commercial Division by the current Respondents for orders requiring work to be done by the current Appellant, the parties having previously entered into contracts for building work to be undertaken at the residential premises of the Respondents by the Appellant. The Respondents alleged that some of the work undertaken suffered from a number of defects. 3. The parties engaged experts who had provided a joint report which was tendered in evidence before the Tribunal. The expert for the Respondents was Mr Spratling and the expert for the Appellant was a Mr Drexler. The joint report dealt with a number of items the subject of the Respondents' claims. 4. In the result the Tribunal ordered that certain work (as set out in the Decision) be undertaken in respect of items 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 19 and 21. 5. The Appellant has lodged an appeal in respect of the work orders applicable to items 3, 4 and 21. There is no appeal with respect to the orders concerning the other items. 6. It is necessary to summarise the Decision with respect to the above three items the subject of this appeal. In doing so we incorporate some evidence from the joint report of the experts.