Seok Wong v Doumit Building Pty Ltd t/as Unicorn Building and Repairs [2014] NSWCATCD 15

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Seok Wong v Doumit Building Pty Ltd t/as Unicorn Building and Repairs [2014] NSWCATCD 15 Hearing dates: 30 September 2013 Decision date: 16 January 2014 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G Meadows, Senior Member Decision: The application is dismissed Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Seok Wong (Applicant) Doumit Building Pty Ltd t/as Unicorn Building and Repairs (Respondent) File Number(s): HB 13/29706

reasons for decision

Application 1This application was filed on 6 June 2013, soon after my decision in matter number HB 12/34963 was published on 1 May 2013. In the earlier application, the applicant homeowner had claimed, initially, of water ingress from defective water proofing on balconies causing various kinds of internal damage to the premises, water penetration from "higher external ground into Entry level" causing internal damage and efflorescence on balcony tiles and garden walls, pursuant to the Home Building Act 1989 ("the Act"). The original claim was considerably expanded, especially in relation to the amount claimed as required to rectify the alleged defects. As will be discussed further below, I found the homeowner's evidence, particularly expert evidence, to be unsatisfactory and that she had not proved many of the items claimed. Out of a claim for about $130,000.00 (at the time of the hearing of that matter), I allowed less than $11,000.00. 2The current application claims as follows: "On 8 May 2013, water was found dripping down the Family room ceiling despite dry weather and the source was traced back to a leaky pipe in the bathroom above the ceiling. Water also continues to drip down the Entry, Garage and Stairwell ceilings and walls which are located underneath the 2 south balconies with 2 planter boxes. The Defendant [sic] had blamed the planter boxes for the water ingress but they are now re-waterproofed and water still continues to penetrate. This application seeks to recover costs: (1) for building inspection report by Sydney Property Inspections (NSW) P/L dated 8 May 2013 for $450.00. (2) to repair leaky water pipe in Bed 1 en-suite bathroom by Surefix Plumbing dated 8 May 2013 for $324.50. (3) to repair rotten timber on rear north roof flashing and reseal by JVR Waterproofing quoted 12 May 2013 for $316.00. (4) to re-waterproof 2 south balcony planter boxes by JVR Waterproofing quoted 12 May 2013 for $1,062.00. (5) to re-waterproof 2 tiled south balconies by Megasealed quoted 13 May 2013 for $11,575.00. (6) to repair and repaint affected ceilings, walls and floors by Metta Constructions quoted 14 May 2013 for $10,340.00. Total: $24,067.50." 3During interlocutory proceedings, the preliminary issue has arisen as to whether the applicant is entitled to maintain this application or parts of it. On 25 July 2013, Senior Member Bordon made orders inter alia in relation to this issue which encapsulated the preliminary issue itself, as follows: "1. The applicant shall provide to the respondent and the Tribunal, a copy of all documents including a statement on which the applicant intends to rely at the preliminary hearing whether the applicant is entitled to enforce a warranty for a deficiency of a different kind to the one to which HB 12/34963 relates under section 18E of the HBA by 08-Aug-2013". [Emphasis added] The respondent was also ordered to provide all documents on which the respondent intended to rely by 22 August 2013.