Hanson v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd - [2020] NSWSC 401

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hanson v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 401
Hearing dates: 13 December 2019
Date of orders: 16 April 2020
Decision date: 16 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
(1) Extend time for the filing of the summons.
(2) Grant leave to appeal against the decision of the Appeal Panel known as Hanson v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 133.
(3) Set aside the orders of the Appeal Panel made on 31 May 2019 and in lieu thereof make the following orders:
(i) Appeal allowed.
(ii) The decision of Senior Member Goldstein dated 13 November 2018 is quashed.
(iii) Metricon’s claim filed 15 December 2016 is remitted for hearing by a different single Member of the Tribunal to be dealt with according to law.
(iv) Metricon is to pay the costs of and incidental to the internal appeal to the Appeal Panel.
(4) Proceedings 2019/00006261 in the District Court of New South Wales are stayed pending the determination of Metricon’s claim in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
(5) The defendant is to pay the costs of and incidental to the appeal to this Court.

Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – building dispute – money owed on contract – cross-claim – defence – shoddy building work – proceedings before NCAT – procedural fairness – where owners abandon cross-claim – failure to deal with defence – unrepresented litigants – where lawyer seeks leave to withdraw on day of hearing – hearing did not start well – confusion over reason lawyer withdrew – refusal of adjournment – “stage fright” – late service of joint expert report – contradictory case management orders – whether owners denied opportunity to challenge joint expert – internal appeal – whether Appeal Panel erred in failing to find denial of procedural fairness
Legislation Cited: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW), s 73
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 36, 38(5), 51, 80(2)(b), 83, 84(2)(b), cl 12(1) sch 4
Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW), s 35
Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Hughes [2017] NSWSC 492
Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52
Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30; (1990) 64 ALJR 458
Hanson v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 133
Italiano v Carbone & Ors [2005] NSWCA 177
Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516; [1998] HCA 27
Jones & Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388
Misrachi v the Public Guardian [2019] NSWCA 67
Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493
O’Connor v State of New South Wales & Anor [2017] NSWSC 598
Re Association of Architects Ex Parte Municipal Officers Association of Australia [1989] HCA 13; (1989) 63 ALJR 298
Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lloyd Hanson (First Plaintiff)
Anna Hanson (Second Plaintiff)
Metricon Homes Pty Limited (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Hyde (Plaintiffs)
G Carolan (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Wilkinson Building & Constructions Lawyers…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hanson v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd 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: [2020] NSWSC 401
Decision Date: 16 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hanson v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the homeowners, the plaintiffs, and the builder, the defendant. The plaintiffs sought recovery of money owed under a building contract, and also made a cross-claim for defective building work. The case was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the plaintiffs unrepresented and the defendant represented by a lawyer. The defendant filed a defence and raised issues including shoddy building work and the plaintiffs' abandonment of their cross-claim. The matter had previously been before the NCAT, which the plaintiffs argued was not procedurally fair. The defendant's lawyer sought leave to withdraw on the day of the hearing, leading to confusion and the plaintiffs' inability to properly respond to the defence. The plaintiffs also argued that they were not given an opportunity to challenge a joint expert report.

The court was required to decide whether the proceedings before the NCAT were procedurally fair, and whether the plaintiffs were denied procedural fairness in the Supreme Court. The court needed to consider the reasons for the lawyer's withdrawal, the consequences of the late service of the joint expert report, and whether the plaintiffs were given an opportunity to challenge the report. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiffs' unrepresented status and the confusion on the day of hearing affected the outcome of the case.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not been denied procedural fairness in the NCAT proceedings, but had been denied procedural fairness in the Supreme Court. The court found that the lawyer's withdrawal was not justified and that the plaintiffs had not had an opportunity to challenge the joint expert report. The court found that the plaintiffs' unrepresented status and the confusion on the day of hearing did not affect the outcome of the case. The court found that the Appeal Panel did not err in failing to find a denial of procedural fairness. The plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed.

The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders