Hulin v. Bill Qui Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor

Hulin commenced an action against Bill Qui Constructions Pty Ltd, the builder, for damages arising from excavation work associated with the construction of a high rise apartment building, which allegedly caused damage to his neighbouring property. Alternatively, Hulin sought an injunction to prevent further damage. Bill Qui Constructions Pty Ltd applied to have the matter transferred to the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal. The Supreme Court was required to decide whether the dispute was a minor commercial building dispute or a domestic building dispute, and thus whether it should be transferred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Court was also required to determine whether the costs incurred in the proceeding should be awarded on an indemnity basis.

The Court held that the dispute was a minor commercial building dispute, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Court found that the Tribunal had the necessary expertise to deal with the dispute and that transferring the matter to the Tribunal would be more efficient and cost-effective. The Court also found that the conduct of the litigation by Bill Qui Constructions Pty Ltd did not warrant the awarding of costs on an indemnity basis. The Court held that the transfer application was made in good faith, and that the respondent/plaintiff had not acted unreasonably in seeking particulars and disclosure.

The Court dismissed the application to transfer the matter to the Tribunal. The Court ordered that the costs, including reserved costs, be assessed on the standard basis. The Court found that the conduct of the litigation did not justify the awarding of costs on an indemnity basis. The Court held that the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to seek particulars and disclosure in the ordinary course of litigation, and that the applicant/defendant had not acted unreasonably in filing the transfer application. The Court held that the costs incurred in the proceeding should be assessed on the standard basis, and that the respondent/plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity costs.