H Buildings v Owners Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 69 min read
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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] VSC 802
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between H Buildings and Owners Corporation was heard in a court, where H Buildings sought declaratory relief to challenge the jurisdiction of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to continue handling applications relating to a residential hotel development. The dispute centred on whether the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 applied to the residential hotel and whether VCAT had the authority to proceed with the applications. Additionally, H Buildings sought an injunction to prevent VCAT from continuing to deal with matters beyond its jurisdiction.

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.