| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE | Not Restricted |
COMMERCIAL COURT
TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION LIST
S ECI 2017 0153
| H BUILDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 091 236 912) formerly Hickory Group Pty Ltd | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| OWNERS CORPORATION 1 PS537642N & ORS (according to attached Schedule of Parties) | Defendants |
---
JUDGE: | Digby J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16 August 2017 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 22 December 2017 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | H Buildings v Owners Corporation |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2017] VSC 802 |
---
DECLARATORY RELIEF – Challenge to the jurisdiction of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to continue to deal with applications – Whether Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 applies to a ‘residential hotel’ development – Availability of injunctive relief to restrain the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal from continuing to deal with a matter beyond jurisdiction – Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, ss 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 53 and 54.
INJUNCTION – Restraining the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Want of jurisdiction to deal with disputes in relation to building works which are excluded from the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 as a ‘residential hotel’.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr G H Golvan QC with Mr B Mason of Counsel | Piper Alderman |
| For the First to Ninety-Sixth Defendants | Mr H Foxcroft QC with Mr B Reid of Counsel | McMahon Fearnley |
| For the Ninety-Eighth Defendant | Mr R Harris | Marchesin & Co. |
| For the Ninety-Ninth Defendant | Mr S Grahame | Lander & Rogers |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background......................................................................................................................................... 1
Relief for remedy sought by the Builder....................................................................................... 2
Relevant legislation........................................................................................................................... 2
Builder’s application for a declaration........................................................................................... 8
Builder’s submissions.................................................................................................................. 8
Residential part of licensed premises........................................................................................... 13
The Court’s power to make the orders sought by the Builder................................................ 13
Balance of convenience................................................................................................................... 14
Defendants’ submissions................................................................................................................ 14
Impermissible use of extrinsic material....................................................................................... 17
Defendants’ summary position in relation to cited case........................................................... 17
Builder’s responsive submissions................................................................................................. 18
The Builder’s summary position in relation to cited cases....................................................... 21
Considerations.................................................................................................................................. 22
The nature of the declaration sought by the Builder............................................................. 22
The relevant legislation................................................................................................................... 22
The law............................................................................................................................................... 23
Case summaries................................................................................................................................ 24
Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd v Southside Tower Developments Pty Ltd........................... 24
Port Phillip City Council v Domain Hill Properties Pty Ltd......................................................... 24
Maclaw No 651 Pty Ltd v HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd.......................................... 25
HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v Maclaw No 651 Pty Ltd............................................. 25
Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd v Mt Holden Estates Pty Ltd....................................................... 26
Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd v Mt Holden Estates Pty Ltd....................................................... 26
Mirvac (Docklands) Pty Ltd v Philp.............................................................................................. 27
Kane Constructions Pty Ltd v Sopov............................................................................................. 27
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd............................................................................................................ 28
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd............................................................................................................ 28
Glenrich Builders Pty Ltd v 1–5 Grantham Street Pty Ltd........................................................... 29
Republic of Turkey v Mackie Pty Ltd............................................................................................. 29
Burbank Australia Pty Ltd v Owners Corporation PS 447493..................................................... 30
Jinalec Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council and Stringer…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read H Buildings v Owners Corporation and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] VSC 802
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues were whether the residential hotel was subject to the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 and whether VCAT had the jurisdiction to proceed with the applications in question. The court needed to interpret the scope of the Act and determine whether the residential hotel was covered by its provisions. Furthermore, it had to assess whether VCAT could validly exercise jurisdiction over disputes concerning the building works that were arguably outside the purview of the Act.
In delivering the judgment, the court examined the provisions of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, particularly sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 53, and 54, to ascertain the applicability of the Act to the residential hotel. The court found that the Act did not apply to the residential hotel as it was not a residential building within the definition of the Act. Consequently, VCAT lacked the jurisdiction to continue handling the applications. The court granted the injunction, restraining VCAT from dealing with the matter beyond its jurisdiction.
The court ordered that VCAT was prohibited from continuing to deal with the applications related to the building works for the residential hotel development. It declared that VCAT did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with such matters, thereby affirming H Buildings' position that the tribunal had overstepped its authority.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.