Tuck v White [2015] NSWCATCD 126

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Tuck v White [2015] NSWCATCD 126 Hearing dates: 27 August 2015 Decision date: 07 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: J Lynch, General Member Decision: 1 The consumer Meagan Tuck is to pay the contractor David Glenn White the sum of $2,327.60 pursuant to section 8 (2) (b) Consumer Claims Act by instalments of $1,163.80 per fortnight first payment 9 October 2015. Catchwords: Reasonable market cost of labour and materials; due care and skill Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 Consumer Claims Act 1998 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Meagan Tuck (applicant) David Glenn White (respondent) Representation: Both self represented: File Number(s): HB 15/35191 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The applicant Meagan Tuck ("consumer") seeks an order that she not have to pay the amount invoiced to her by the respondent David Glenn White ("contractor) in the sum of $2,877.60. The contractor states he undertook work for the consumer pursuant to a written quote and that this sum is due to him as no payment has been made for the work undertaken. Further the consumer states the cost of rectification is $2,700 plus GST = $2,970 The contractor concedes there is some repointing required to the capped tiles.

Jurisdiction 1. The claim was filed using a Home Building application form in the Consumer and Commercial Division on 20 May 2015. 2. Due to amendments to the Home Building Act which apply to claims lodged after 1 March 2015 Clause 2 (3)(a) of Schedule 1 Home Building Act excludes from the definition of "home building work" work where the reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved does not exceed the amount prescribed in the regulations which is currently $5,000. So the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this claim under the Home Building Act as it is below the threshold for residential building work. There is no suggestion on the facts of this case that the contract price of $2,877.60 does not represent reasonable market cost of labour and materials. I find that the reasonable market cost of the work and materials does not exceed $5,000. The claim may be determined under the Consumer Claims Act. The applicant is a "consumer" as defined in section 3 as a natural person to whom a supplier has agreed to supply services under a contract. The services provided are roof restoration repointing work.