Li v Luxy Homes Pty Ltd

[2025] NSWCATCD 35

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Li v Luxy Homes Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATCD 35

Hearing dates:

3 February 2025

Date of orders:

2 June 2025

Decision date:

02 June 2025

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

Senior Member K Ross

Decision:

1.   Luxy Homes Pty Ltd is to pay to Danni Li the sum of $48,170.00, on or before 30 June 2025.

2.   The applicant is to file and serve any application for costs by 16 June 2025.

3.   The respondent is to file and serve submissions in response by 30 June 2025.

4.   Submissions must address whether a hearing of the cost application can be dispensed with.

Catchwords:

BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION : Residential building work; building goods and services; whether preliminary work falls within the definition of residential building work; whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction; repudiation; damages; pre judgement interest

Legislation Cited:

Home Building Act 1989

Fair Trading Act 1987

The Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014, Div 2, Part 9, section 39

Civil Procedure Act 2005,

Cases Cited:

Grygiel v Baine & Ors [2005] NSWCA 218

Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd v Jandson Pty Ltd; Jandson Pty Ltd v Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP

Antonio & Marianna Di Rico v Dion Cominos; Dion Cominos v Antonio & Marianna Di Rico [2015] NSWCATCD 75

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Danni Li
Luxy Homes Pty Ltd

Representation:

Solicitors:
Christine Sun (applicant)
Jason Chen (respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/00336738

Publication restriction:

unrestricted

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. This claim arises out of an agreement between the applicant and the respondent for the construction of a house.

2. It is not disputed that the agreement was the subject of two documents, one entitled “Preliminary Works Authorisation” and dated 20 November 2021, and one entitled “NSW Residential Building Contract for New Dwellings” and dated 22 November 2021.

3. The applicant alleges that there is one agreement, and seeks a refund of monies paid to the respondent under that agreement, on a number of bases. The respondent notes that it did not sign the Preliminary Works Authorisation, says the two documents are separate documents with separate purposes, and argues that the Preliminary Works Authorisation document is not an agreement for the supply of building goods and services, depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

4. At the time the documents were signed, the applicant did not own the land upon which the house was to be built. The purchase of the land was the subject of a separate contract dated 23 November 2021 between the applicant and the owner of the land. The purchase of the land settled on 8 January 2024.

5. The applicant paid a total of $53,170.00 to the respondent between 2 November 2021 and 22 November 2022. The applicant says that the amount was paid pursuant to what she says was the one agreement, and formed the deposit under the Building Contract, whilst the respondent says that the amount was consideration under the Preliminary Works Authorisation and did not constitute the deposit under the Building Contract.

6. It is not disputed that on 23 February 2024, the respondent sought to increase the price under the Building Contract by 12.5%, or in the alternative, suggested that the applicant could enter into a new agreement with a different builder at a price increase of 10%. The applicant says that the respondent was not entitled to increase the price by 12.5%, whilst the respondent says that it was entitled to do so.

7. The applicant alleges that the failure of the respondent within a reasonable time to deliver the preliminary works under the agreement constitutes a breach of the building contract, and was a total failure of consideration, or in the alternative argues that the respondent has been unjustly enriched. The applicant also says that the contract is void because the respondent breached s 92 of the Home Building Act 1989 by failing to provide Home Warranty insurance. She claims to be entitled to a refund of the deposit on that ground.

8. The applicant seeks damages including a refund of the deposit paid ($53,170.00), damages for the increase in building cost ($66,464.00), lost rent ($27,940.00), interest and costs.

9. The respondent opposes the orders sought. It submits that the claim is not a building claim, and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine it. It also submits that there is no basis for the orders sought. It seeks that the application be dismissed.

The issues

10. The dispute raises the following issues:

1. Is this claim a building claim and does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine it?

2. What is the status of the documents? Is there one contract or two?

3. What obligations if any did each party have under the Preliminary Works Authorisation? Did the Builder breach its obligations? If so, is the applicant entitled to a refund of the amount paid?

4. Did the sum paid form the deposit under the Building Contract?

5. Was the Builder in breach of its obligations to provide home warranty insurance? If so, what is the effect of that breach?

6. Was the Builder entitled to demand a 12.5% price increase? If not, did that demand constitute a repudiation of the Building Contract? If so, did the applicant accept the repudiation? Was the applicant entitled to terminate the contract?

7. If the applicant was entitled to terminate the agreement, what damages is the applicant entitled to?

The status of the documents

11. Whilst a determination as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction is fundamental to this claim, it is useful first to consider the status of the documents which evidence the agreement between the parties. These are:

1. The single page Preliminary Works Authorisation, which bears the signature of the applicant (but not the respondent) and is dated 20 November 2021 (the PWA), and

2. The NSW Residential Building Contract for New Dwellings, which is in the form of an HIA contract, is signed by both parties, and is dated 22 November 2021 (the Building Contract). It contains various schedules, including a consent apparently signed on 20 November 2021 by the applicant (referred to as “the owner”) entitling the Builder to deal with the Council, and special conditions in addition to the standard terms. It does not annex a homeowners warranty insurance certificate but states that the certificate will be provided before construction commences (Schedule 6).

12. I do not accept the applicant’s submission that the documents form one contract because they were contained within one Docusign envelope. This would be akin to arguing that if multiple documents were posted via Australia Post in a single envelope for signature, they became one document. There is nothing in special condition 3.3 of the Building Contract (which deals with execution by Docusign) which would deem the two documents to be one.

13. The documents are however interdependent:

1. The PWA defines the Building Contract as “The HIA contract (as amended) provided to the Owner around the same time of this agreement to construct a new home on the land”.

2. The Preliminary Works are defined in the PWA as:

1. Arrange site inspections

2. Arrange investigation and consultant works including survey and/or measurements required

3. Prepare detailed plans and specifications based on the tender provided by the Builder

4. Arrange the preparation of engineering design

5. Submit building plans to appropriate authorities for approval.

3. The PWA provides that “in exchange for the Builder agreeing to an early execution of the Preliminary Works”, the owner “agrees to pay a fee of $52,260 (the Fee), and to procure the consent or authority from the current landowner relating to the Preliminary Works.”

4. The PWA states that the Fee

“may be credited towards the Building Contract when each requirement below is met:

1. the Owner enters into the Building Contract with the Builder within 60 days and no later from the date hereof and

2. the Owner has completed the purchase of the land, and subsequently has complied with its obligations under Clause 4 of the Building Contract.”

5. The Building Contract contains special condition 3.6 which provides for how the Fee is to be dealt with if the Building Contract comes to an end.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine this claim?

14. Section 48A of the Home Building Act 1989 contains the following definitions:

“building claim” means a claim for--

(a) the payment of a specified sum of money, or

(b) the supply of specified services, or

(c) relief from payment of a specified sum of money, or

(d) the delivery, return or replacement of specified goods or goods of a specified description, or

(e) a combination of two or more of the remedies referred to in paragraphs (a)-(d),

that arises from a supply of building goods or services whether under a contract or not, or that arises under a contract that is collateral to a contract for the supply of building goods or services, but does not include a claim that the regulations declare not to be a building claim.

“building goods or services” means goods or services supplied for or in connection with the carrying out of residential building work or specialist work, being goods or services--

(a) supplied by the person who contracts to do, or otherwise does, that work, or

(b) supplied in any circumstances prescribed by the regulations to the person who contracts to do that work.

“supply” have the same meanings as in Part 6A of the Fair Trading Act 1987.

15. Part 6A of the Fair Trading Act 1987 contains s 79G :

Meaning of “supply”

79G Meaning of “supply”

(cf CC Act 1998, s 3 (1) (definition of “supply”) and s 3 (2))

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a reference to the supply of goods includes a reference to any of the following--

(a) supplying goods by way of sale, exchange, lease, hire or hire-purchase,

(b) resupplying goods,

(c) agreeing to supply goods,

(d) supplying goods together with services.

(2) For the purposes of this Part, a reference to the supply of services includes a reference to any of the following--

(a) providing, granting or rendering services for valuable consideration,

(b) agreeing to supply services,

(c) supplying services together with goods.

16. The Builder submits that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this dispute on the basis that the claim is not a building claim because

1. the applicant’s claim is a claim for refund of the Fee, and the Fee was paid under the PWA.

2. the Builder did not sign the PWA and has no obligations under it.

3. the Fee has not been credited to the Building Contract, and no monies have been paid pursuant to the Building Contract, and

4. the PWA is not an agreement for the supply of building goods or services

17. I will deal later in these reasons with the issue as to whether the Fee has been credited to the Building Contract, but even if it has not, and remains a Fee under the PWA, for the following reasons I am satisfied that the claim is a building claim, and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine it.

18. I accept that the Builder did not sign the PWA. However, the PWA was submitted by the Builder to the owner. The Builder accepted the Fee “in exchange for the Builder agreeing to an early execution of the preliminary works”. I am satisfied that the PWA reflects an agreement by the Builder to implement an early execution of the preliminary works, upon certain conditions being met.

19. I am satisfied that the preliminary works as defined in the PWA come within the definition of building goods and services because they were goods or services supplied for or in connection with the carrying out of residential building work and they were to be supplied by the Builder which contracted to do that work. The works are all preparatory works related to the residential building work which is the subject of the building contract. Grygiel v Baine & Ors [2005] NSWCA 218 (Grygiel) is authority for the proposition that preparatory works are included in the definition of residential building work:

57. On one view, the definition of “residential building work” is not limited to activities, such as laying foundations and painting a building, on site, but extends to work of a preparatory nature. Alternatively, preparatory work could be said to have a sufficient connection with the carrying out of building work because its purpose was to give rise to residential building work and it had a sufficient causal nexus with such work: see generally, Technical Products Pty Ltd v State Government Insurance Office (Qld) (1989) 167 CLR 45 at 47-48 (Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ). Accordingly, it is at least arguable that project management arrangements, of the kind address in both Collings Homes cases, would fall within the definition of “building claim”. Were that not the case, distinctions would need to be drawn which might have an arbitrary result, at least from the perspective of the homeowner. Thus, where an architect or project manager provides plans and designs, locates a builder and coordinates and supervises the actual building work, any loss suffered as a result of inadequate coordination and supervision would fall within the building claim, but other conduct would not.

20. This reasoning has been adopted in Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd v Jandson Pty Ltd; Jandson Pty Ltd v Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 228. After a thorough analysis of Grygiel and other seemingly inconsistent decisions, the Appeal Panel came to this conclusion:

293 The result of what we have said is that, in our opinion:

(1) The construction of a dwelling refers to the building process itself (such as the laying of foundations and painting a building).

(2) Work that is “involved in” (meaning included as a necessary or integral part, connected by association, associated with, connected with or concerned with) the construction of a dwelling is “residential building work”. Thus, work of a preparatory nature (that which precedes construction) is “involved in” the construction of a dwelling if that work is included as a necessary or integral part of the construction, or associated with, connected with or concerned with the construction work.

(3) The “carrying out of residential building work” is descriptive of (and not a factual pre-condition to) the goods or services with which a connection must be established.

(4) Goods or services supplied could be said to be sufficiently “connected with” the carrying out of residential building work if:

(a) their purpose was to give rise to residential building work; and

(b) they had a sufficient causal nexus with such work.

(5) A building claim may “arise” from the supply of building goods or services under a contract if the claim specifically involves the terms of the contract between the homeowner and the builder.

21. I am satisfied that the preliminary works are building services which were to be provided in connection with the carrying out of residential building work.

22. If I am wrong about that, in any event I am satisfied that the PWA is an agreement which is collateral to the Building Contract. As the definition of “supply” includes “agree to supply”, and as the Building Contract is clearly an agreement to supply building goods and services in connection with the carrying out of residential building work, any claim under the PWA is a claim under an agreement collateral to the agreement in the Building Contract for the supply of building goods and services and falls within the definition of a building claim.

23. I am therefore satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this dispute.

The PWA – what were the parties’ respective obligations? Did the Builder breach its obligations?

24. The PWA states that, in exchange for the Builder agreeing to an early execution of the preliminary works, the Owner had two obligations under the PWA – to pay the Fee and procure the consent or authority of the landowner relating to the preliminary works.

25. Whilst the applicant paid the Fee, there is no evidence that she obtained the consent of the owner of the land for the preliminary works to be carried out before she was the registered owner of the land. In these circumstances, the Builder was not required to organise the early execution of the Preliminary Works, and cannot be said to be in default of that obligation.

26. The Owner cannot be entitled to a refund of the Fee on this basis.

Did the Fee come to form the deposit under the Building Contract?

27. Condition 4 of the PWA states that the Fee

“may be credited towards the Building Contract when each requirement below is met:

1. the Owner enters into the Building Contract with the Builder within 60 days and no later from the date hereof and

2. the Owner has completed the purchase of the land, and subsequently has complied with its obligations under Clause 4 of the Building Contract.”

28. The first of those requirements was satisfied when the Building Contract was entered into on 22 November 2021. The second was partially met when the land was settled on 8 January 2024.

29. However, Clause 4 of the Building Contract required the Owner to do certain things within the initial period, defined as a period of “15 working days after construction certificate is received”. As the construction certificate was not received, the last of these requirements was not met and the opportunity for the Fee to be credited towards the Building Contract did not arise.

Was the Builder in breach of its obligations to provide home warranty insurance? If so, what is the effect of that breach?

30. Section 92 of the Home Building Act 1989 provides as follows:

92 Contract work must be insured

(1) A person must not do residential building work under a contract unless--

(a) a contract of insurance that complies with this Act is in force in relation to that work in the name under which the person contracted to do the work, and

(b) a certificate of insurance evidencing the contract of insurance, in a form approved by the Authority, has been provided to the other party (or one of the other parties) to the contract.

: Maximum penalty--1,000 penalty units in the case of a corporation and 200 penalty units in any other case.

Note--: Part 6B (see section 104B) provides that the requirement to obtain insurance under this section may be met by obtaining coverage through an alternative indemnity product.

(2) A person must not demand or receive a payment under a contract for residential building work (whether as a deposit or other payment and whether or not work under the contract has commenced) from any other party to the contract unless--

(a) a contract of insurance that complies with this Act is in force in relation to that work in the name under which the person contracted to do the work, and

(b) a certificate of insurance evidencing the contract of insurance, in a form approved by the Authority, has been provided to the other party (or one of the other parties) to the contract.

: Maximum penalty--1,000 penalty units in the case of a corporation and 200 penalty units in any other case.

(2A) An individual who is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under subsection (1) or (2) is liable to a penalty not exceeding 500 penalty units or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both.

(3) This section does not apply if the contract price does not exceed the amount prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section or (if the contract price is not known) the reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved does not exceed that amount.

(4) If the same parties enter into two or more contracts to carry out work in stages, the contract price for the purposes of subsection (3) is taken to be the sum of the contract prices under each of the contracts.

(5) A contract of insurance that is in force in compliance with this section in relation to residential building work (the

“original work”) done by a person extends to any residential building work done by the person by way of rectification of the original work.

Note--: Accordingly, this section does not require a separate contract of insurance in relation to the rectification work.

(6) To avoid doubt, this section extends to residential building work that is also owner-builder work (when the work is done under a contract between the person who contracts to do the work and the owner-builder).

31. Insurance is required to be provided by the Builder before it carries out any residential building work, or receives any payment “under a contract for residential building work”. As I am satisfied that the services which were to be provided pursuant to the PWA came within the definition of residential building work, the Builder had an obligation to provide homeowners warranty insurance before it received the payment under the PWA.

32. The applicant submitted that in these circumstances she was entitled to a refund of the monies paid pursuant to the agreement. However, a failure to supply the insurance does not render the agreement void. I am not satisfied that the applicant is entitled to a refund of the amount paid on the basis that there was no homeowners warranty insurance provided. Rather the Builder is not entitled to enforce the contract and is not entitled to damages (see s 94).

Was the Builder entitled to demand a 12.5% price increase? If not, did that demand constitute a repudiation of the Building Contract? If so, did the applicant accept the repudiation? Was the applicant entitled to terminate the contract?

33. The Builder argued that it was entitled to make a claim for increased costs under the contract, and it was the applicant who repudiated the agreement when she denied that the Builder was entitled to the increased costs.

34. Special Condition 3.2 applies. The Builder was entitled to serve a notice of price variation before the building work commenced, if the purchase of the land was not completed before 1 April 2023, and was entitled to increase the price by 2.5% plus GST on 1 April 2023, and every six months from 1 April 2023.

35. On 23 February 2024, the Builder served a Price Increase Notice. The Builder claimed a 5% plus GST increase in the Price pursuant to cause 3.2 of the Contract. It claimed in addition a 7% increase (GST inclusive) pursuant to clause 15 of the Contract.

36. Clause 15 provides:

15.1   If, after this contract is signed, a statutory or other authority introduces or increases:

a. any tax, charge, levy or other regulation or

b. any requirement that affects the building works

that causes any increase in the cost of the building works there is a    contract price adjustment.

15.2    If the builder is required to do more or less work to comply with the requirement of a statutory or other authority the builder must ask for a variation for the change required and clause 18 applies.

37. Clause 1 contains these relevant definitions:

“statutory or other authority means the principal certifying authority, Local Government, State or Federal Government, or any Government agency that has power to affect the building works”

building works means the building works to be carried out, completed and handed over to the owner in accordance with this contract as shown in the contract documents and includes variations

38. Special condition 2.2 states:

Definition of statutory or other authority: replace “any Government agency” with “any other agency body or entity”.

39. Thus, the definition of statutory or other authority as amended by Special condition 2.2 reads:

“means the principal certifying authority, Local Government, State or Federal Government, or any other agency, body or entity that has power to affect the building works”.

40. The Builder stated in the Price Increase Notice that:

“As a building business that heavily relies upon and is therefore impacted by trades and materials, the trades and suppliers have significant powers to affect the building works (including their costs). Any increase in costs and charges introduced by our trades and suppliers will cause cost increases in the cost of the building works.”

41. I do not accept that trades and suppliers come within the amended definition of statutory or other authority, because trades and suppliers do not have power to affect the works which are to be completed and handed over to the owner. I do not accept that the Builder is entitled to rely upon Clause 15 to adjust the price because of increases in its costs to complete the building works where those increased costs are not related to a statutory or other authority either introducing or increasing any tax, charge, levy or other regulation or introducing or increasing any requirement that affects the building works, causing the increase in the cost of the building works.

42. I therefore find that the Builder was not entitled to the price increase which it demanded in the Price Increase Notice. The service of that notice amounted to a repudiation of the Building Contract by the Builder.

43. The respondent submits that if the Tribunal finds that the attempt to increase the price was not in accordance with the contract, the attempt to increase the price was not a breach of a fundamental term of the contract. I do not accept this submission. I am satisfied that the price of the building works in a building contract is a fundamental term of that contract, and any attempt to increase the price beyond what is permitted in the contract is a breach of a fundamental term.

Did the applicant accept the repudiation?

44. On 29 August 2024, the applicant’s solicitor served notice on the Builder’s solicitor, requiring the Builder to perform the contract by carrying out the preliminary works. The applicant cannot be said to have accepted the repudiation by this notice, because it sought to affirm the contract and demanded that the Builder take action pursuant to it.

45. However, on 8 October 2024, a further notice of breach was served. This notice identified as breaches the failure to carry out the preliminary works, the attempt to unilaterally increase the price, and the invitation to seek an alternate builder, and sought that the Builder remedy the breach by providing evidence of what preliminary works had been undertaken, and confirmation that the Builder would adhere to “the original pricing agreed upon within the contract”.

46. On 30 October 2024 the applicant served a notice of termination of the contract.

47. Whilst I am not satisfied that a failure to carry out the preliminary works is a breach of the contract, because the PWA did not form part of the contract, I am satisfied that the applicant was entitled to and did accept the Builder’s repudiation of the contract by the attempted increase of the price. I am satisfied that she was then entitled to terminate the contract.

What damages is the applicant entitled to?

48. Special condition 3.6 of the Contract provides:

“In the event that this building contract is frustrated, rescinded, terminated, or comes to an end due to no fault of the Owner, Builder will refund paid preliminary work fee, less costs, expenses and out of pocket money of the builder incurred for preliminary work and for this building contract by then, which must not be more than $5000.”

49. The clause does not refer to a refund of the deposit under the building contract, but to the preliminary work fee. The building contract has been terminated, due to no fault of the Owner. The clause applies to determine the distribution of the preliminary fee. The Builder is entitled to retain up to $5000 for “costs, expenses and out of pocket money of the builder incurred for preliminary work and for this building contract”.

50. The Builder claims to have incurred costs of $38,552.50 in relation to or arising from the performance of the preliminary works under the PWA. Under cross examination he identified agent’s fee, costs to prepare the contract, and the fee for the designer to prepare the concept plans as expenses incurred.

51. None of these expenses are “expenses or out of pocket money incurred for preliminary work” as it is apparent that the Builder did not carry out any preliminary works. They are however “costs expenses or out of pocket expenses incurred for… this building contract”.

52. I am satisfied that the Builder is entitled to retain $5000 from the preliminary fee, but must refund the balance.

What order should the Tribunal make?

53. The applicant claims a refund of the preliminary fee, damages for increased cost of building, damages for loss of rent, pre and post judgement interest and costs.

Refund of preliminary fee

54. I am satisfied that I should apply the contractual condition agreed between the parties. I will order the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $48,170.00, being the preliminary fee paid, less the sum of $5000 in accordance with special condition 3.6 of the Contract.

Increased building costs

55. Based upon the Builder’s claim that the cost to build the house had risen by 12.5%, the applicant says that if she was to engage another builder, the cost would be at least 12.5% higher. However, this evidence is inconsistent with the evidence that the Builder was prepared to refer the applicant to a builder who would have increased the cost by 10%. There is no other evidence about what the cost to build the house might now be, and indeed no evidence that the applicant is intending to engage or has engaged another builder to build the house.

56. I am not satisfied that the applicant has proven that she has suffered this loss, and in the absence of this evidence I dismiss this claim.

Loss of rent

57. The applicant also claims a loss of rent for the period 8 January 2024 to 12 November 2024. There are a number of difficulties with this claim. There is firstly no evidence that the house would have been built by 8 January 2024 in any event, particularly bearing in mind that the Builder had no obligation to undertake preliminary works because the applicant had not obtained the consent of the landowner. Even if those works had been carried out, the house would not have been constructed by the time of settlement of the land contract.

58. In addition, the applicant did not serve the default notice until more than 7 months after the Builder had served the Price Increase Notice. It was the applicant who delayed in enforcing any rights she had.

59. I am not satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the loss of rent she claims.

Prejudgement interest

60. The applicant does not articulate the basis on which she says that the Tribunal has power to award prejudgement interest. I am not satisfied that the Tribunal has power to order prejudgement interest. I note the decision of Senior Member Charles in Antonio & Marianna Di Rico v Dion Cominos; Dion Cominos v Antonio & Marianna Di Rico [2015] NSWCATCD 75 (30 June 2015) at paras 145 and 146:

“I find that there is no basis in this case to make an order for pre judgment interest, whether based on a statutory rate of interest or some other manner of calculation (e.g. a contractual rate of interest). The Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014, Div 2, Part 9, section 39 refer to s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, which relates to post judgment interest. There is no other provision giving effect to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act which relates to pre judgment interest.

Accordingly the Tribunal does not have power to award pre judgment interest under the Civil Procedure Act or any other enabling legislation. In this regard, I am not assisted by the builder’s submissions that since there is also no provision which expressly prohibits the Tribunal from awarding pre judgment interest, it can be said in the circumstances that an award of interest compensates the builder for his loss or detriment of being kept out of money for almost four years. That argument is misconceived because the Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction to award any such ‘compensation’.”

Post judgement interest

61. Post judgement interest will be payable if the respondent does not pay the judgement debt.

Costs

62. As the applicant has been successful, at least in part, I will allow for the parties to make submissions in relation to costs. If the applicant seeks a lump sum cost order, the quantum of that claim and evidence to support the quantum should be provided.

Orders

1. Luxy Homes Pty Ltd is to pay to Danni Li the sum of $48,170.00, on or before 30 June 2025.

2. The applicant is to file and serve any application for costs by 16 June 2025.

3. The respondent is to file and serve submissions in response by 30 June 2025.

4. Submissions must address whether a hearing of the cost application can be dispensed with.

*********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 31 July 2025