Dyna Constructions Pty Ltd v Bocco Developments Pty Ltd

Case [2021] NSWDC 507

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dyna Constructions Pty Ltd v Bocco Developments Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 507
Hearing dates: 11 and 12 May 2021
Date of orders: 23 September 2021
Decision date: 23 September 2021
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

(2)   The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.

(3)   In the event that any party wants to apply for a different costs order, I grant leave to the parties to approach my Associate within 14 days to list that application for argument.

Catchwords:

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Australian Consumer Law

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — Insurance — False or misleading applications

Legislation Cited:

Australian Consumer Law

Home Building Act 1989

Cases Cited:

Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd v Sydney Catchment Authority (No 3) (2006) 67 NSWLR 341

ACCC v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1177

ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Frost Holdings Pty Ltd [1989] VR 695

Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99

Australian Broadcasting Corp v XIVth Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 540

Axelsen v O’Brien (1949) 80 CLR 219

Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592

Campomar Sociedad Limatada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45

Cherry v Park-Steele [2017] NSWCA 295

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v FKP Ltd [2008] FCA 1915

Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd v Henjo Investments Pty Ltd (1987) 72 ALR 601

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Mehta (1991) 23 NSWLR 84

Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation (1991) 174 CLR 64

Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31

Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Gee Dee Nominees Pty Ltd (2017) 91 ALJR 486

Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640

Enzed Holdings Ltd v Wynthea Pty Ltd (1984) 57 ALR 167

Frith v Gold Coast Mineral Springs Pty Ltd (1983) 65 FLR 213

General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp (1993) 117 ALR 629

Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) 55 ALR 25

Hall v Busst (1960) 104 CLR 206

Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 357

Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (No 1) (1988) 79 ALR 83

Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 216

Howard Smith & Co Ltd v Varawa (1907) 5 CLR 68

I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers(Brisbane) Pty Ltd (2002) 210 CLR 109

Idoshore Pty Ltd v IPN Medical Centres (NSW) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1175

JLW (Vic) Pty Ltd v Tsiloglou [1994] 1 VR 237

Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351

Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 170

Lam v Ausintel Investments Aust Pty Ltd (1990) 97 FLR…

Continue reading Dyna Constructions Pty Ltd v Bocco Developments Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dyna Constructions Pty Ltd v Bocco Developments Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 507
Case
[2021] NSWDC 507
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dyna Constructions Pty Ltd brought an action against Bocco Developments Pty Ltd in relation to an insurance matter concerning a false or misleading application. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought damages for losses incurred due to the defendant's alleged false or misleading application, which they claimed was in breach of the Australian Consumer Law and the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). The defendant denied the allegations and maintained that their actions were lawful and did not breach any statutory provisions.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant's application was indeed false or misleading and, if so, whether it constituted a breach of the Australian Consumer Law or the Home Building Act. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's actions were misleading and resulted in financial losses for them. The defendant countered that their application was truthful and that any losses suffered by the plaintiff were due to their own mismanagement. The court had to weigh the evidence presented by both parties and assess the credibility of the witnesses and documents submitted.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the defendant's application was not false or misleading. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of the Australian Consumer Law or the Home Building Act on the part of the defendant. Consequently, the court entered a verdict and judgment in favour of the defendant, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed. Additionally, the court granted leave for any party to apply for a different costs order within 14 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.

(3) In the event that any party wants to apply for a different costs order, I grant leave to the parties to approach my Associate within 14 days to list that application for argument.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.