Ferretti v The Owners �e" Strata Plan No 8847 [2026] NSWCATCD 25;

1. The applicant is the owner of a strata lot in an apartment building in Cabramatta. The first respondent is the owners corporation for the strata scheme. The second respondent (plumber) is a plumbing company.
2. In February 2024, the owners corporation arranged for the plumber to investigate a water leak from the applicant's lot into a lot below. The plumber reported there was a leak from the shower that arose from failed waterproofing.
3. On 3 March 2024, the plumber provided the owners corporation a quote for repair. The quote was divided into "strata cost" and "owners cost". The "strata cost" was $2,995 plus GST and was for removing shower floor tiles and certain wall tiles and waterproofing and retiling those areas. The "owners cost" was $2,070 plus GST and was for removing other wall tiles, waterproofing and retiling those areas and supplying and installing a shower screen and shower set. It appears the premise of the quote being divided was that "strata cost" involved work regarded as the owners corporation's responsibility and the "owners cost" involved work regarded as the applicant's responsibility.
4. On 14 March 2024, another plumbing company, Megasealed, provided the owners corporation a quote for similar work. It also split the cost between "strata" ($2,390 plus GST) and "owner" ($1400 plus GST).
5. Around that time, the owners corporation also sought a quote from a third plumbing company, Cuesta. The quote noted "substandard size of shower, shower area must have at least 900mmx900mm wide or minimum 900mmx800mm". It recommended "complete bathroom renovation and removed the existing bathtub to have bigger enough shower area". The quote was $19,990 including GST. It was split into "strata cost" of $7,370 and "owner's cost" of $12,620.
6. On 22 March 2024, the applicant's agent contacted the plumber seeking a quote for a full bathroom renovation. Her email relevantly stated:

"The owner may be looking to do a renovation on the bathroom and would like a quote on the following.

Removal of the bath, relocating the shower hob where the bath drain is. Full standard shower recess with new shower screen and tap wear.

Removal of existing basin, new vanity instal where old shower/bath is or where existing basin is if enough room, new white wall tiles, tile height as existing, dark floor tiles. New bathroom door.

Could you please itemise the quote for any strata cost associated with waterproofing."

1. On 18 April 2024, the plumber's officer emailed the applicant's agent an updated quote. It set out "strata costs" of $9,890 including GST and "owners costs" of $11,415 including GST. The work described under "owners costs" relevantly included:

"To remove existing bath to install the new shower in its place.

To upgrade the bath drainage through the floor to suit the new shower installation.

To run new hot & cold water point to the new shower location."

1. The quote did not otherwise deal with the new shower position. It did not refer to the shape and size of the shower. No design or drawings of the proposed new bathroom accompanied the quote.
2. On 26 April 2024, the applicant's agent sought confirmation that the quote included encasing and tiling a pipe that ran through the bathroom and advised that, if so, the applicant was happy to proceed with the quote and that she would seek "authorisation from strata to proceed".
3. On the same day, the applicant emailed the quote to the strata manager and stated he wished to proceed with it.
4. On 1 May 2024, the strata manager emailed the applicant's agent stating it would issue a work order to the plumber for the quote. Later correspondence confirms a work order was subsequently issued to the plumber with the description "Please proceed with your quote no 61371 for the bathroom renovation for unit 17".
5. On 2 May 2024, the strata manager issued on behalf of the owners corporation an invoice to the applicant for the "owners costs" component of the quote of $11,415.
6. On 17 May 2024, the applicant paid the invoiced amount to the owners corporation.
7. The work was commenced on 23 May 2024, but was suspended 29 May 2024. It appears this was prompted by the owners corporation or strata manager realising that the renovation, to the extent it involved work by the applicant (that is, the "owners costs" component) which affected common property but was neither cosmetic nor minor, required approval in general meeting or a by-law being passed.
8. On 30 May 2024, the strata manager advised the applicant's agent that the plumber would return to complete the waterproofing work which the owners corporation had agreed to do and an extraordinary general meeting would be called to have the renovation approved in general meeting.
9. A good deal of correspondence then passed between the various parties which it is not necessary to detail.
10. By 21 June 2024, the waterproofing work had been carried out. It appears that the renovation works were also progressed during that time.
11. On 3 July 2024, a general meeting was held and resolutions were passed approving the renovation and ratifying the previous approval on behalf of the owners corporation of the "strata costs" component of the work.
12. The renovation was subsequently completed by the plumber.

1. By his application, the applicant claims that the shower that was installed by the plumber was not the "full standard shower recess" for which he had requested a quote. He principally seeks a work order for a 900mm x 900mm shower to be installed instead, or alternatively, a money order in the amount of a quote of $15,950 from another plumber, Wondrous Renovations, for that work to be done. He also seeks damages for consequential loss in the form of lost rent during the period the work is to be done.
2. There is an issue arising from the nature of the transaction as to what cause of action is available to the applicant against the respondents, and therefore against which party the relief can be sought.
3. The applicant also makes a separate and unrelated claim against the owners corporation in respect of cracking to bathroom and lounge room walls in his lot.

1. The documents relied on by the parties were received into evidence as follows:

Exhibit A - applicant's material lodged 2 June 2025

Exhibit B - applicant's material lodged 27 June 2025

Exhibit C - applicant's material lodged 1 August 2025

Exhibit 1 - owners corporation's material lodged 15 July 2025

Exhibit 2 - plumber's material lodged 17 July 2025

1. In order to address the question of jurisdiction, it is necessary to characterise the arrangements between the parties.
2. I find that, in issuing the work order, the owners corporation accepted the quote from the plumber. So far as the "strata costs" component of the work is concerned, this gave rise to a contract in respect of that work between the plumber and the owners corporation in its own right. As for the "owners costs" component of the work, I find that the owners corporation accepted the quote on behalf of the applicant, who had earlier communicated his acceptance of the quote to the plumber. The owners corporation obtained payment of the amount for that component from the applicant for it to be applied to pay the quote. Thus, it entered into the contract in respect of that work as the applicant's agent. It follows that the applicant, as principal, was party to that contract.
3. Thus, the applicant would have a cause of action in contract against the plumber.
4. The Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to a "building claim": s 48K of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (Act). A "building claim" includes a claim for "the payment of a specified sum of money" or "the supply of specified services" "that arises from the supply of building goods or services": s 48A of the Act. "Building goods or services" means "goods or services supplied for or in connection with the carrying out of residential building work or specialist work": s 48A of the Act. The bathroom renovation involved the carrying out of such work: see definitions of "residential building work" and "specialist work" in Schedule 1 to the Act.
5. The contract between the applicant and the plumber was a contract to do residential building work. The statutory warranties in s 18B of the Act are implied into it. That includes a warranty that the work will be done in accordance with the plans and specifications set out in the contract (s 18B(1)(a)) and a warranty that the work will be reasonably fit for the specified result if the applicant expressly made known to the plumber the result that he desired the work to achieve, so as to show that he relied on the plumber's skill and judgment (s 18B(1)(f)).
6. Even if my finding that there was a contract between the applicant and the plumber were wrong (that is, the contract was only with the owners corporation), I would have found that the applicant could make a building claim against the plumber in respect of breach of the statutory warranties under s 18B by reason of s 18D(1A): see EK Constructions Pty Ltd v Zhu [2017] NSWCATAP 102 at [20].
7. Turning to the work done, photographs show the completed bathroom and shower. The shower enclosure (or recess) is in a corner of the bathroom. It is diamond-shaped with an angled door running diagonally opposite the room corner. It adjoins the bathroom window. There is no screen between the enclosure and the window. The tiling encased pipe that runs across the base of the wall underneath the window is contained in the enclosure. That tiling is elevated and is not part of the floor area of the enclosure. The floor dimensions of the enclosure are 80cm (adjacent to the tiling encased pipe) x 72cm (wall side) x 37cm x 49 cm (diagonal) x 39cm.
8. The applicant contends that the shower installed is not a "full standard shower recess" referred to in his agent's email of 22 March 2024 as what a quote was sought for. It is common ground that there were no drawings of the design of the proposed bathroom before the work. According to the plumber in its points of defence, "the design was stipulated by the [applicant's] agent via email on the 22/3/24" and "in the quote".
9. There was no separate written contract to the quote. The quote did not specify the shape and size of the shower. Nor did it set out the specific location of the shower, other than it would be in place of the existing bath and utilise the bath drainage. Having been silent on those matters, I find, consistently with the plumber's points of defence, that the requested "full standard shower recess" formed part of the plan and specification of the contract. If that element of the quote request was not accepted by the plumber, it should have stated otherwise in the quote. Further, the applicant expressly made known, by his agent's email of 22 March 2024, that his desired result was for a "full standard shower recess". The plumber did not seek to revise or qualify that result in the quote. Indeed, the evidence indicates that the plumber never communicated to the applicant the design it ultimately installed. Plainly, the applicant relied on the plumber to achieve the desired result.
10. The issue then is whether the shower installed is a "full standard shower recess". The plumber's position is that it is.
11. Although there is no expert evidence before the Tribunal prepared in accordance with NCAT Procedural Direction 3, the expression can be readily understood in its ordinary meaning, and against the background of the Cuesta quote referring to shower dimensions of "900mmx900mm wide or minimum 900mmx800mm" and the Wondrous Renovations quote stating the shower is "too small" and is not "standard-size". The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and is required to act without technicality and on the substantial merits. I am satisfied from the photographs, in particular the one showing a person standing in the shower, that it cannot be described as a "full standard shower recess".
12. Accordingly, I find that the plumber breached the statutory warranty in s 18B(1)(a) of the Act because it did not build the bathroom in accordance with the plans and specifications set out in the contract. I also find that the plumber breached the statutory warranty in s 18B(1)(f) of the Act because it did not build the bathroom in a manner fit to include a "full standard shower recess".
13. The plumber contends that a 900mm x 900mm shower recess would have affected the access to the toilet and vanity and thus could not have been contemplated under the contract. I am not satisfied that is the case. The plumber did not provide evidence to support the contention. The Wondrous Renovations quote states that "there is enough room in the bathroom to install a standard-size shower". In any event, the contention does not mean that what was installed was a "full standard shower recess". I find that what was installed did not amount to that.
14. The plumber relies on a determination by an inspector of the Building Commission that there were no defective or incomplete items detected at the time of the inspection on 7 January 2025. However, my finding is not that the shower was defective in the sense of not complying with building standards. It is that what was installed does not conform to the contract.
15. The next issue is the appropriate remedy for breach of statutory warranty.
16. Section 48O of the Act sets out the orders the Tribunal is empowered to make, and includes a money order ((1)(a)) and a work order ((1)(c)). As far as possible, a homeowner should be put back in the position he or she would have been in had the builder not breached the statutory warranty. The general principle on which damages are recoverable by a homeowner for breach of a contract to do residential building work is the cost of making the work or building conform to the contract, subject to the qualification that not only must the work be necessary to produce conformity, but it must also be a reasonable course to adopt. Section 48MA of the Act provides that rectification by the responsible party is the "preferred outcome". It means that a work order against the builder should be made unless that is inappropriate on the facts of the particular case. A work order must focus on rectification of the particular item that does not conform to the contract: see Petropoulos v CPD Holdings PL t/as The Bathroom Exchange (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 233 at [23]- [30].
17. The applicant proposes an order that, within 60 days, the plumber remove the existing shower enclosure and supply and install a standard 900mm x 900mm framed shower situated clear of the window and tiling encased pipe.
18. There is no reason why a work order would be inappropriate in this case. The proposed work order is necessary to make the work conform to the contract. The plumber submits the work order is unreasonable because it would require the plumber to install a shower that would leave inadequate space for proper access to the toilet and vanity. However, any such issue is really a concern for the applicant and he does not consider that would be the case. Further, according to Wondrous Renovations, there is sufficient space. Having regard to those matters, as well as the photographs of the bathroom, I do not accept the builder's submission: see also Petropoulos at [34].
19. The applicant rents out his lot at $420 per week. The applicant claims damages for the rent he will lose during the period the work is being done because the lot cannot be occupied on account of the shower being unavailable. I am satisfied the applicant should be awarded such damages.

1. The applicant has provided photographs showing cracking on walls and ceilings in the bathroom and lounge room. There is also a photograph of staining on the balcony gutter. He claims they are evidence of failed waterproofing and represent damage arising from a breach by the owners corporation of its duty to maintain and repair common property under s 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW).
2. The applicant provides no other evidence to support his claim as to the cause of the cracking and staining. In particular, the applicant has not obtained any evidence from an expert, or even a contractor, addressing how they have arisen. The owners corporation arranged for an inspection of the cracking by a contractor. The contractor did not consider there was a failure of waterproofing that had caused the cracking. It provided a quote for rectifying the cracks with sanding and painting.
3. I am not satisfied on the evidence presented that there is a breach by the owners corporation of its duty to maintain and repair common property as claimed.

1. The owners corporation seeks its costs of the application. Each party to proceedings in the Tribunal is to bear its own costs, unless there are special circumstances to warrant an award of costs: s 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). Rule 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) permits an award of costs in this Division without special circumstances where, relevantly, the amount in dispute exceeds $30,000. I find that r 38 does not apply. The owners corporation did not point to any matter indicating the existence of special circumstances. To the contrary, its oral submissions identified the circumstances surrounding the costs it has incurred in a manner which resembles most cases before the Tribunal.
2. The applicant also seeks costs representing the filing fee, photocopying and postage and his agent's fees. I find that r 38 does not apply. I am not satisfied there are special circumstances to warrant an award of costs in favour of the applicant.
3. I will make orders in accordance with my reasons.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.