Hi-tech Aluminium Windows Pty Ltd v Maric Developments Pty Ltd - [2024] VSC 694

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2023 04351

HI-TECH ALUMINIUM WINDOWS PTY LTD T/A WINDOWS BY DESIGN (ACN 111 958 500)	Applicant
v
MARIC DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 104 986 558)	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Ginnane J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 November 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hi-tech Aluminium Windows Pty Ltd v Maric Developments Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 694

---

APPEAL – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Claim by builder against manufacturer and supplier of windows allegedly not complying with agreed specifications – Applications for striking out or summary dismissal of proceeding – Interlocutory orders – VCAT refusing applications and granting builder leave to file and serve amended points of claim – Application for leave to appeal interlocutory orders dismissed -Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 ss 77, 78, 127, 148 – Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 ss 184, 217.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M Hawkins	Cogent Legal Services
For the Respondent	Ms G Nip	Spectrum Lawyers & Consultants

HIS HONOUR:

The applicant, Hi-tech Aluminium Windows Pty Ltd t/a Windows By Design (‘Hi-tech’), manufactures windows and doors. The respondent, Maric Developments Pty Ltd (‘Maric’), is a builder. In 2013 and 2014 it built an apartment complex in West Footscray and contracted Hi-tech to supply glazed windows for the price of $55,312.99.

On 12 April 2022, Maric filed an application against Hi-tech in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s Civil Claims List. Maric’s claim alleged that Hi-tech had failed to build the glazed windows in accordance with the agreed specifications and had thereby breached their contract, supplied goods which were not fit for purpose and had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. It withdrew the last claim. In its original VCAT application, Maric sought as its ‘Desired Outcome’ ‘payment $1,400.00, Exchange/Replace’ which amount was claimed as the ‘cost to try and repair door 4 in unit 1’.

Hi-tech applied to strike out Maric’s application under s 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (‘VCAT Act’), which deals with summary dismissal of a proceeding, or to strike it out under s 78, for conduct of a proceeding causing disadvantage.

On 8 August 2023, at a directions hearing, a Member of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’ or the ‘Tribunal’) granted Maric leave to file and serve amended points of claim. In its amended points of claim, dated 9 August 2023, Maric sought orders that Hi-tech pay it: the sum of $21,882.40 plus GST for rectification of the windows, the sum of $1,400.00 that it had paid to Hi-tech for failed rectification works or, alternatively, damages for breach of contract.

At a further directions hearing on 21 August 2023, before another Tribunal Member, Hi-tech continued to oppose Maric’s application and its amended points of claim and…

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 Hi-tech Aluminium Windows Pty Ltd v Maric Developments Pty L... 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: [2024] VSC 694
Decision Date: 12 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hi-tech Aluminium Windows Pty Ltd v Maric Developments Pty Ltd involved a dispute between a builder and a manufacturer and supplier of windows. The builder, Maric Developments Pty Ltd, alleged that the windows supplied by Hi-tech Aluminium Windows Pty Ltd did not comply with the agreed specifications. The matter was heard in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

The legal issues before the court included whether Maric Developments Pty Ltd was entitled to strike out or dismiss the proceeding brought by Hi-tech Aluminium Windows Pty Ltd. Additionally, the court had to consider whether to grant the builder leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim, as well as the manufacturer's applications for interlocutory orders. The court also had to decide whether to grant the manufacturer leave to appeal the interlocutory orders.

The court examined the provisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 to determine the appropriate course of action. In its decision, VCAT refused the applications for striking out or summary dismissal of the proceeding. The court also granted Maric Developments Pty Ltd leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim, while denying the manufacturer's applications for interlocutory orders. Furthermore, the court dismissed the manufacturer's application for leave to appeal the interlocutory orders. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant legislation and the specific circumstances of the case.

No further orders were made by the court beyond those already mentioned. The decision effectively allowed the builder to proceed with its amended claims, while preventing the manufacturer from pursuing interlocutory orders or appealing the interlocutory decisions made by VCAT.

Orders