Australia, July 30 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 30:

1. This is an internal appeal under s 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the NCAT Act) against a decision made in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal on 15 January 2025. The decision concerns a long running residential building dispute, governed by the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (HBA)

2. The appellant, Mr Jerry Jaroslav Kratochvil, entered into a contract with the respondent, Cutting Choice Pty Ltd (Cutting Choice), for renovations to his residence. He was unsatisfied with the work and terminated the contract on 27 July 2023. Cutting Choice claimed that the work was satisfactory and issued an invoice for a progress payment for $22,268.40 on 5 July 2023. This invoice was not paid and Cutting Choice suspended work on 9 July 2023. Both parties commenced proceedings in the Consumer and Commercial Division, Mr Kratochvil claiming $27,607 for defective work and Cutting Choice claiming $29,844, comprising the unpaid progress payment, variations and the final progress claim.

3. The Tribunal dismissed Mr Kratochvil's application and made an order in favour of Cutting Choice in the sum of $19,368.40, which was directed to be paid within 14 days.

4. Mr Kratochvil appeals this decision. His application was lodged on 11 February 2025. There is no dispute that the appeal was lodged within the prescribed period for the purposes of r 25(4)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) (the NCAT Rules).

5. Mr Kratochvil applied for a stay of the orders at the time he lodged his appeal. On 26 February 2025, the Appeal Panel dismissed the application for a stay and made directions about the conduct of the appeal.

6. Both parties are self-represented, and Cutting Choice is represented by its director, Mr Cox, who is also the builder who undertook the disputed residential building work.

7. Mr Kratochvil has appealed because he says the Tribunal was misled by evidence provided by Cutting Choice, including about certification of the framing. Mr Kratochvil contends that the finding of the Tribunal that he was not entitled to terminate the contract was wrong. He did not repudiate the contract and had the right to terminate because of the defects claimed, as outlined in his evidence. Mr Kratochvil relied on various building inspection reports. Mr Kratochvil contends that the Tribunal was wrong to reject his claims about building defects and submits Cutting Choice is not entitled to payment of the fourth progress payment claim. He seeks leave to appeal because he says the decision was not fair and equitable, against the weight of evidence and he now seeks to rely on new evidence.

8. Cutting Choice contends that it did not mislead the Tribunal, Mr Kratochvil failed to prove his case, and all relevant evidence was submitted to the Tribunal. Cutting Choice opposes the appeal and supports the original orders made by the Tribunal.

9. For the reasons set out below, we have decided to dismiss the appeal and otherwise refuse leave to appeal.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197be1eca84c8491f0c75b5a)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.