Grygiel v Baine

The proceedings involved a building dispute before the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT). The claimant, Mr Grygiel, sought to join his company as a co-plaintiff, arguing that the company was a party to the contract. The Tribunal found the company was not a party to the contract but that a cross-claim against the company remained on foot. The claimant also sought to join a law firm, of which the homeowner was a partner, as a defendant, alleging the firm provided legal services that gave rise to a building claim. The central dispute concerned the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider these proposed claims and whether it erred in refusing the applications to join the company and the law firm.

The court was required to determine whether the CTTT had jurisdiction to consider the proposed claims against Mr Baine and the law firm concerning the provision of legal advice in relation to the supply of building goods and services. This involved an examination of the meaning of "building claim" under s 49A of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) and the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction under s 67 of the CTTT Act, particularly in relation to interlocutory decisions and the joinder of parties. The court also considered whether a collateral contract existed between the homeowner and the builder.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of s 67 of the CTTT Act, which permits appeals to the Supreme Court on a matter of law. It noted that while the provision does not explicitly require leave to appeal, the discretionary nature of prerogative relief and the potential for interlocutory rulings to be binding on parties suggested that a requirement for leave might be appropriate. The court drew parallels with decisions concerning appeals from administrative tribunals, highlighting that appeals generally lie from effective or final decisions, unless the proceedings can be divided into separate parts with independent decisions. The court found that the Tribunal's decision on its jurisdiction in relation to the proposed claims against Mr Baine and the law firm constituted a separate and determinative decision that could be the subject of an appeal.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the Master's judgment and the Tribunal's decision regarding its jurisdiction over the proposed claims against Mr Baine and the law firm. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration of those claims. The court also ordered Mr Baine to pay the claimant half of his costs for the appeal before the Master and the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The application for leave to appeal was otherwise dismissed.