Sasa Zecevic v Mohammed Abdulrahim [2014] NSWCATCD 212

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Sasa Zecevic v Mohammed Abdulrahim [2014] NSWCATCD 212 Hearing dates: 7 August 2014 Decision date: 24 October 2014 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: P Boyce, Senior Member Decision: The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $4,389.00 on or before 15 November 2014; Costs reserved. Catchwords: Building defects, owner builder Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 Cases Cited: R v Tang [2006] NSW CCA 167 Daubert v Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc 509 US 579 [1993] Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sasa Zecevic (applicant) Mohammed Abdulrahim (respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Stojanovic Solicitors (Applicant) Watson & Watson (Respondent) File Number(s): HB 13/65933 Publication restriction: Unrestricted

reasons for decision

Application 1. This application is a building claim made pursuant to the Home Building Act 1989 ("Act"). 2. The applicant is a home owner and the respondent is a builder licenced pursuant to the provision of the Act. 3. The home owner applicant filed an application in the Home Building Division of the Consumer Tenancy and Trader Tribunal ("CTTT") on 13 May 2013 in relation to building work carried out by the respondent at the applicant's home at Casula, New South Wales. 4. In the application the applicant states that the dispute is about "rendering has cracked all around the house; must fix to stop it falling & stop it affecting the structural integrity of the walls; price to fix $50,000". 5. On 26 September 2013 the CTTT made ex parte orders that the respondent pay the applicant $39,450.00 being the amount determined to be the cost of rectifying "defective works [;] being rendering and rising damp". 6. On 23 October 2013 the respondent appealed the decision of the CTTT to the District Court of NSW. 7. On 20 November 2013, by consent, the District Court made orders: 1. The Appeal is allowed 2. The matter is to be remitted to the Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal for re-hearing 3. The defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs of the District Court proceedings 1. The application is now heard de novo.