This case involved a claim by Warrane Pty Ltd for $260,459.00 (incl GST), calculated as being the reasonable value, on a quantum meruit basis, of alterations and / or additions to an existing dwelling owned by the respondents, less the amount paid to date for the work. The respondents denied the claim. The Tribunal found that Warrane Pty Ltd was entitled to an order for the payment of $98,153.54.
This matter involved claims for defective and incomplete residential building work and damages and involved questions of construction of a costs plus building contract. On appeal, questions concerning the application of the decision in Allen v Wallace [2019] NSWCATAP 58 were raised.
This matter involved claims by Home Owners for defective and incomplete residential building work in the construction of two duplexes as well as the measure of Home Owners’ damages for breach of contract by the Builder.
These matters included claims by Owners for defective and incomplete building works and claims by the builder for unpaid works.
This matter involved allegations of defective work and the application of section 48MA of the Home Building Act.
These matters involved Commercial List proceedings brought by two Owners Corporations in a single multi-use high rise building. The proceedings were brought against the builder and developer and questions of the extent of a duty of care owed to successors in title were raised. The matter went on appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal and then to the High Court.
This matter involved an appeal from decision of a Senior Member of NCAT and concerned the determination of a building dispute. There were two appeals, one from the Owners and one from the Builder. The appeal involved issues of jurisdiction including the criteria for leave to appeal and contractual interpretation.
This matter involved a claim for reimbursement of money that had been paid in settlement of an insurance claim relating to a home warranty insurance claim. An alternate claim for damages was also made.
This matter involved a construction dispute and expert evidence and questions concerning the proper construction of a building contract.
This matter concerned claims pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW).
This matter dealt with particular evidence that was to be provided to an appointed Referee in relation to abuilding dispute.
This matter involved an application to disqualify a member of a Tribunal from hearing the proceedings. The basis of the application was apprehended bias. In addition, an application was made for the transfer of the proceedings to another member. Proceedings in the CTTT involved a number of separately filed applications including:
Many of these matters (No. HB 03/12535 - a claim for a specified sum of money (in relation to defective work): HB 03/24969 - an appeal by a homeowner from an insurer’s decision: HB 04/45085, HB-04/45087 and HB 05/14043)were subsequently transferred to the District Court of New South Wales
This matter involved an application pursuant to s 67(1) of the Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Act 2001 (NSW) to set aside a decision of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal in matter number HB 03/24969 handed down on 27 May 2004.
In this matter questions of ambiguity of abuilding contract were raised.
This matter involved an appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal from a decision of Nicholas J (Casbee Properties Pty Ltd v Patoka Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 284) and involved a question of whether leave to appeal should be granted and whether or not an arbitrator had applied the appropriate test.
This matter involved an application for leave to appeal an arbitrator’s award. The question was whether there had been a manifest error on the face of the award and whether the referee’s report should be adopted by the Court.
This matter involved an appeal from a decision of the Fair Trading Tribunal given on 6 December 1999.The appeal raised questions of the proper interpretation of certain provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 No. 147 and the Home Building Regulation 1997 and ultimately led to amendments to that legislation.
This matter involved a notice of motion to join parties to proceedings. Some of the parties joined were in liquidation. The questions of the legal principles in relation to joinder were examined as well as the effect of section 86 of the Home Building Act.
This matter involved an appeal against an insurer’s decision refusing a claim under an insurance policy that had been taken out by a builder. A question arose as to whether the applicant was a beneficiary. Issues of interpretation of the policy and of principles applicable where parties execute agreements in a qualified way.
This matter involved a preliminary point determination relating to several issues including: (a) whether the applicants, who had entered into a contract with a builder to build a number of town houses, were “developers” within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989; (b) whether particular provisions of the Home Building Regulations applied; (c) whether a particular clause of a policy of home warranty insurance could exclude liability in the circumstances.
