Rowland v Composition Construction Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 32

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Rowland v Composition Construction Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 32 Hearing dates: 24 February 2014 Decision date: 14 March 2014 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: K Rosser, Senior Member Decision: Payment of damages 1. The respondent shall pay the applicant the sum of $500,000.00 by 14 April 2014. 2. The respondent shall pay the applicant's costs as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: Home building; Termination of contract; Damages for defective and incomplete work; Liquidated damages; Damages for loss of use of money. Legislation Cited: Home Building Act (NSW) 1989 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (NSW) 2013 Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act (NSW) 2002 Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Regulation 2009 Cases Cited: Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125 Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 and Oshlak v Richmond River Council 193 CLR 72 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Neil Rowland (applicant) Composition Construction Pty Ltd (respondent) Representation: Mr To of Counsel for the applicant, instructed by Watkins Tapsell Solicitors and Barristers Mr Emans (director of the respondent) for the respondent File Number(s): HB 11/48716

reasons for decision

Application 1.Mr Rowland seeks an order for damages in the sum of $500,000.00 from Composition Construction Pty Ltd [Composition Construction] in respect of the cost of rectification of defective works, completion costs, damages for loss of use of money and liquidated damages. The claim arises from a contract for residential building work dated 27 June 2010. 2.In response to the application, Competition Construction claims that it terminated the contract on 2 April 2014 because of breach by Mr Rowland and that Mr Rowland is therefore not entitled to completion costs and damages for loss of use of money. Composition Construction concedes some but not the entire claim in respect of defective work. In relation to liquidated damages, Composition Construction claims that delays in completion of the works were legitimate and that Mr Rowland had refused to accept applications for extensions of time.