NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Barber v Wilson [2017] NSWCATCD 49 Hearing dates: 21 April 2017 Decision date: 27 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: Francesco Corsaro, SC, Senior Member Decision: 1. The Tribunal orders that the respondent, Emma Kathryn Wilson is to immediately pay the applicant. Franca Barber, the sum of $6,227.40 for the respondent's breach of the statutory warranties under section 18B(1) of the Home Building Act, 1989 (NSW) Catchwords: Building Claim – breach of statutory warranties – claim by successor in title to developer Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Franca Barber (Applicant) Emma Kathryn Wilson (Respondent) Representation: The applicant in person The respondent in person File Number(s): HB 16/23720 Publication restriction: Unrestricted
reasons for decision
INTRODUCTION 1. This application arises out of the construction and sale of a newly constructed townhouse (the Townhouse) in a residential strata development in Croydon Park, a suburb of Sydney (the Complex). The address of the Townhouse is in the Tribunal's files. As there is no need to give the address to properly understand what I have determined, for privacy reasons the determination deliberately omits any reference to the precise location of the Townhouse. 2. The applicant, Ms Barber, purchased the Townhouse from the respondent, Ms Wilson, in December 2013. Ms Wilson was the developer of the Complex. It is common ground that Ms Wilson engaged a builder, Eye Constructions Pty Ltd (the Builder), to build the Complex for her. I have no doubt that Ms Wilson sold the Townhouse to Ms Barber intending that the Builder would carry out the works properly, so that Ms Barber would acquire it in good order, and free of defects. 3. Ms Barber's original application claimed compensation against both the Builder and Ms Wilson. The application referred to the amount of compensation as $15,000 for defective and incomplete works. As it turned out, Ms Barber eventually settled with the Builder, on terms that are set out in a handwritten document dated 28 February 2017, which Ms Barber provided to me at the hearing. Because of that settlement: 1. Ms Barber withdrew her application against the Builder, and the Tribunal dismissed the claims against the Builder, leaving the current claim against Ms Wilson on foot; and. 2. the claims against Ms Wilson were reduced. 1. At the hearing, Ms Barber confirmed that her claim for compensation against Ms Wilson was for $7,725.40, made up as follows: 1. the cost of repairing leaks in the Townhouse roof - $1375; 2. the cost of repairing a leaking and faulty tap - $200; 3. the cost of repairing a colour bond fence - $550; 4. the cost of grouting and repairing stained tiles - $4652.40; and 5. the cost of installing the exhaust fan in the Townhouse ensuite - $200
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate