Australia, Aug. 16 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 15:

1. These proceedings originated in the Consumer and Commercial Division as 23/00378035 (formerly HB 23/39594) filed 30 August 2023. In a decision on 6 December 2023 a member ordered the current appellant (the then-respondent) to pay the applicant (the respondent to this appeal) $3,045 immediately. We shall refer to the parties in the way they appear in this appeal.

2. In his written reasons the member referred to the respondent having purchased 20 solar panels, an inverter and full solar system "some six years before the hearing date" and that neither party had an invoice or quote showing works done at the time; the appellant said that the system was connected to the grid on 18 April 2016. The applicant's roof was replaced under an insurance claim after catastrophic floods in the Bilambil region (in northern NSW) in February 2022. The roofer stated that the panels were working but could not be re-installed on the new roof as "large cracks appear in all the removed solar panel backing sheets due to inferior manufacturing materials and their constant exposure to thermal cycling ... ingress water and dust in the PV cell". The member rejected or reduced some of the respondent's claim totalling $6,090: half of the installation costs; costs of the inverter (latter at $1,500), and storage of old panels. A rebate of $2,210 was noted.

3. We note that the original written reasons did not deal with the identity of who supplied and who installed the system and did not indicate how the claim filed in early 2022 from a 2016 supply and installation fitted within s 79L(1)(a) of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) (FTA), which states that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a consumer claim if "the cause of action giving rise to the claim first accrued more than 3 years before the date on which the claim is lodged". We note that the proceedings had begun as a home building claim but there was no indication that the installation constituted a defined defect which had a sufficiently-long limitation period under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) to give the Tribunal jurisdiction.

4. Although there is no record of an appeal being filed, it seems that a set-aside application must have succeeded because the proceedings progressed to a further decision (the primary decision) by a different member (the primary member) which is the subject of this appeal.

5. The primary decision on 11 March 2025 ordered the appellant to pay $4,250 to the respondent immediately. That sum was said to comprise: new solar panels $1,800 allowed at $900 for six years of use; a new inverter $2,000 allowed at $1,000; cabling $1,350, and aluminium racking at $1,000. Costs again (as in the original decision) were not allowed as no special circumstances were shown under s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act) and the circumstances which under rule 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) that allowed the application of the ordinary costs rules did not arise.

6. The orders of 11 March 2025 recorded that oral reasons were given. We have not been supplied with a transcript and sound recording or with a copy of those reasons as was required by the directions to prepare the appeal for hearing. It is therefore not clear whether the identity or limitation points we have already mentioned were dealt with, how the solar panels were costed taking into account the solar rebate and why this time the inverter was included.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19806a6ff39e790d584c2c22)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.