Timothy Heath v Steele Associates Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 8

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Timothy Heath v Steele Associates Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 8 Hearing dates: 1 July 2014 and 18 August 2014Submissions Close: 15 December 2014 from Timothy Heath Decision date: 13 January 2015 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: S Thode, Senior Member Decision: In HB 13/5555 Steele Associates Pty Ltd must pay $88,510.00 to Timothy Heath on or before 7 March 2015. HB 13/51291 is dismissed. Catchwords: Statutory warranties Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 Cases Cited: Craftsmen Restoration & Renovations Pty Ltd v Boland [2011] NSWCA 147; Bellgrove v Eldridge [1954] HCA 36; (1954) 90 CLR 613; Insight Vacations Pty.Ltd. v Young [2010]NSWCA 137 Texts Cited: None Category: Principal judgment Parties: Timothy Heath (applicant) Steele Associates Pty Ltd (respondent) Representation: Counsel: None

Solicitors: None

Mr Heath was self-represented Mr Steele appeared in his capacity as director for the respondent File Number(s): HB 13/51291HB 13/55555 Publication restriction: Unrestricted

Judgment

Background facts not in dispute 1. The parties entered into a contract for residential building work for approximately $3.2 m for the construction of a residence and pool situated in Double Bay. By contract dated 14 August 2008 Timothy Heath (the owner) and Steele Associates Construction Pty Ltd (the builder) entered into a ABICSW 1 2000 Simple Works Contract. Bureau SRH Pty Limited was the nominated architect retained to administer the contract and the architect's representative was Simon Hansen (the architect). 2. Work on the project commenced in or about November 2008. 3. On 20 August 2010 the architect issues a Notice of Practical Completion. 4. On 15 August 2011 the owner signed a deed of novation. 5. The construction of the residence included a pool situated above the entrance to the residence and the pool floor consisted of three large glass panels. It is not in dispute between the parties that the pool sealant leaked and that the pool was drained in 2012 to avoid water damage to the residence. The parties were unable to agree as to the method of rectification required. On the builder's estimate the pool floor could be resealed with the glass panels in situ and at a cost of no more than $24,000.00. The owner maintained the glass panels needed to be removed, resealed and replaced at a cost of $214,000.00.