Giovas v F.E.V Mono Constructions Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 16

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Giovas v F.E.V Mono Constructions Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 16 Hearing dates: 9 and 10 December 2013; 18 and 19 August 2014 and 11 December 2014 Decision date: 03 February 2015 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: K Rosser, Senior Member Decision: In HB 12/31182: The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $55,955.80 by 23 March 2015.

In HB 13/62541: The application is dismissed. Catchwords: Breach of statutory warranties; resiling from expert evidence; joint report Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 Home Building Regulation 2004 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Regulation 2009 Consumer Claims Act 1998 Cases Cited: Davis Homes Pty Ltd v Listowski (Home Building) 2010 NSWCTTT 250 (8 June 2010) Lucantonio v Kleinert [2009] NSWSC 929 (5 August 2009) Texts Cited: None Category: Principal judgment Parties: George Giovas (applicant) F.E.V Mono Constructions Pty Ltd (respondent) Representation: Applicant: Counsel: Mr Chrysostomou Solicitors: Benchmark Lawyers Respondent: Ms and Mr Monovasios File Number(s): HB 12/31182 and HB 13/62541 Publication restriction: Unrestricted

REASONS FOR DECISION

Applications 1. This statement of reasons relates to two applications brought by the applicant against F.E.V Mono Constructions Pty Ltd [the respondent]. Both applications arise out of a contract dated 4 November 2010 between the applicant, his wife Sonia Giovas and the respondent. The contract was for the construction of a new dwelling. 2. In both applications, the applicant seeks damages in respect of alleged defective work in breach of the statutory warranties set out in s 18B of the Home Building Act 1989. 3. For the reasons set out below, I have found in favour of the applicant in HB 12/31182 and made an order for damages in his favour in the sum of $55,955.80. I have found against the applicant in HB 13/62541 and have dismissed the application.