Composition Construction Pty Ltd v Jude and Anna Dias Jude and Anna Dias v Composition Construction Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 54

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Composition Construction Pty Ltd v Jude and Anna Dias Jude and Anna Dias v Composition Construction Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 54 Hearing dates: 10 March 2014 Decision date: 24 April 2014 Before: K Rosser, Senior Member Decision: Payment of damages and costs 1.Composition Construction Pty Ltd shall pay Jude and Anna Dias the sum of $500,000.00 by 15 May 2014. 2.Composition Construction Pty Ltd shall pay Jude and Anna Dias' costs as agreed or assessed. 3.HB 12/34684 (Composition Construction Pty Ltd's application) is dismissed. Catchwords: Home building; Termination of contract; Damages for defective and incomplete work; Costs 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: Composition Construction Pty Ltd (applicant and cross-respondent) Jude and Anna Dias (respondents and cross-applicants) File Number(s): HB 12/24683 and HB 12/52605

reasons for decision

Application and cross-application 1.In its application, which was lodged in the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal on 4 July 2012, Composition Construction Pty Ltd (Composition Construction) seeks an order for payment of $26,244.23, consisting of sums for unpaid invoices, supply of water tanks and pump, fence hire, interest and builder's margin. This claim arises from the purported termination of the contract by Composition Construction on 4 July 2012, following suspension of work on 6 June 2012. The suspension of work and the purported termination of the contract arise from the non-payment of invoices. 2.In defence of Composition Construction's claim, Mr and Mrs Dias argue that the sums claimed in the unpaid invoices were not payable because the work to which they relate was not complete. They claim that the purported termination was in fact a repudiation of the contract which they accepted. In their cross application Mr and Mrs Dias seek an order for payment of damages in the sum of $500,000.00, the limit of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in home building matters. Their claim in this regard is for completion costs and damages for defective work in relation to the laying of the slab and partial construction of a retaining wall. The background to the dispute giving rise to the applications is set out further below.