Tasmanian Turf and Lawn sues Jonathan Du Vergier in court

The owner of a northern Tasmanian turf business launched a claim against a couple over an unpaid bill, with the husband and wife countersuing over the substandard work.

A northern Tasmanian husband-and-wife duo have successfully defended a claim they owed a turf company for an unpaid bill, with a magistrate in fact ordering the company to return the couple’s deposit.

Somerset-based Tasmanian Turf and Lawn, represented in Launceston Magistrates Court on Friday by director Wayne Marshall, launched the claim against Jonathan and Juanita Du Vergier after the pair refused to pay the outstanding bill of approximately $4000 for work undertaken in October last year.

According to Mr Marshall’s evidence, he was contacted by Mr Du Vergier, director of company JD Designs, in relation to a job at 7/9 Phillip St, Perth, which involved the laying of about 50 sqm of turf in preparation for the unit’s sale.

He said his staff completed the job and hoped to show Mr Du Vergier the work in person, but he was unable to attend the property on the day.

Mr Marshall claimed Mr Du Vergier called him late in the afternoon to express his happiness at the job, but that the following morning he was woken up by an irate phone call.

“(It was an) abusive phone call, he went on and on and on about the issues with the turf, he wasn’t happy we hadn’t used sand, there were stones under it, the edging was wrong, I did not get a word in,” Mr Marshall said.

He said he repeatedly attempted to subsequently reach out to Mr Du Vergier to meet him at the property to talk over the issues, but he was unable to make contact.

In response to Mr Marshall’s claim, Mr Du Vergier said it was a “straightforward” job which had been botched.

Among the issues, he claimed the underlying grass and debris hadn’t been fully cleared before the new turf was laid, the turf was laid on top of concrete in parts, the wooden edges had gaps underneath, and the turf was not cut down enough, covering the unit’s weep holes.

Mr Du Vergier commissioned a report by 40-year industry veteran Patrick Graham, of Launceston firm Patrick Graham Landscaping, which concluded the work was “substandard”.

Mr Graham was called upon to give evidence, where he told the court he believed Mr Marshall’s work to be typically exemplary, but that he had missed the mark on this occasion.

“This is the first time I’ve ever seen (turf) laid on existing grass,” he told the court.

Magistrate Simon Brown dismissed Mr Marshall’s claim and instead entered judgment for the respondents in their counterclaim, meaning Mr Marshall will be required to return the $1000 deposit he retained.