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 a significant question concerned whether there had been an error of law by the Senior Member at first instance in allowing a claim for expectation damages in the context of where the building contract contained a mechanism to assist in managing the cost plus nature of the contract. On this point see [121]-[123]. On appeal, questions concerning the application of the decision in Allen v Wallace [2019] NSWCATAP 58 were also raised.
This matter involved claims for defective and incomplete residential building work associated with the construction of two duplexes. It also concerned an assessment of the measure of home owners’ damages for breach of contract.
These matters included claims 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 an appeal from a decision of the Fair Trading Tribunal given on 6 December 1999 in favour of the respondents. The appeal raised questions of the proper interpretation of certain provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 and the Home Building Regulation 1997 and, ultimately, led to amendments to that legislation.
This matter involved an appeal against an insurer’s decision refusing a claim under an insurance policy taken out by a builder. A question arose as to whether the applicant was a beneficiary. Issues of policy interpretation and principles of construction were involved, particularly where parties executed 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.
