LILLEY -v- LINDSAY-SMITH [2001] WASCA 168
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 168 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1003/2001 | 15 MAY 2001 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 1/06/01 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | NIGEL LILLEY DARVAL LINDSAY-SMITH |
Catchwords: | Home building contract Meaning of home building work Installation of wooden floor covering held to be home building work Meaning of associated work Floor held to be associated work |
Legislation: | Builders' Registration Act 1939, s 3(1a) Home Building Contracts Act 1991, s 3, s 4, s 5, s 7, s 10, s 12, s 13, s 17 Interpretation Act 1984, s 18 Justices Act 1902, s 196, s 199 |
Case References: | Cohns Industries Pty Ltd v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1979) 24 ALR 658 Dilworth v The Commissioner of Stamps [1899] AC 99 IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 Savoy Hotel Company v London County Council [1900] 1 QB 665 Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1976) 10 ALR 441 YZ Finance Co Pty Ltd v Cummings [1964] ALR 667 Bull v Attorney General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : LILLEY -v- LINDSAY-SMITH [2001] WASCA 168 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 15 MAY 2001 DELIVERED : 1 JUNE 2001 FILE NO/S : SJA 1003 of 2001 BETWEEN : NIGEL LILLEY
- Appellant
AND
DARVAL LINDSAY-SMITH
Respondent
Catchwords:
Home building contract - Meaning of home building work - Installation of wooden floor covering held to be home building work - Meaning of associated work - Floor held to be associated work
Legislation:
Builders' Registration Act 1939, s 3(1a)
Home Building Contracts Act 1991, s 3, s 4, s 5, s 7, s 10, s 12, s 13, s 17
Interpretation Act1984, s 18
Justices Act 1902, s 196, s 199
Result:
Appeal allowed
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms E M Buttfield
Respondent : Mr P A Monaco
Solicitors:
Appellant : Builders & Painters Registration Board
Respondent : Godfrey Virtue & Co
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cohns Industries Pty Ltd v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1979) 24 ALR 658
Dilworth v The Commissioner of Stamps [1899] AC 99
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1
Savoy Hotel Company v London County Council [1900] 1 QB 665
Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1976) 10 ALR 441
YZ Finance Co Pty Ltd v Cummings [1964] ALR 667
Case(s) also cited:
Bull v Attorney General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156
(Page 3)
1 HASLUCK J: This is an appeal against the whole of the decision delivered on 18 December 2000 by his Worship Mr R Burton SM in the Perth Court…
Continue reading Lilley v LindsaySmith
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Lilley v LindsaySmith [2001] WASCA 168
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 168
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Lilley v Lindsay-Smith involved a dispute over whether the installation of a wooden floor constituted home building work under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). The dispute arose between a builder, Mr. Lindsay-Smith, and his client, Mr. Lilley, who had entered into a home building contract for the construction of a house. The central issue was whether the installation of the wooden floor constituted home building work and if it was associated work under the Act. This question was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The court had to determine whether the installation of the wooden floor fell within the definition of "home building work" under the Act, which includes work done in connection with the construction, alteration, addition or extension of a dwelling. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the floor installation was "associated work" as defined in the Act, which includes work done in connection with the construction of a dwelling that is not itself home building work but is reasonably incidental to it. The court also had to consider the practical implications of these definitions and how they applied to the specific circumstances of the case.
In resolving these issues, the court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the legislative intent behind them. The court found that the installation of the wooden floor was indeed home building work as it was directly connected to the construction of the house. Furthermore, the court held that the floor installation was associated work because it was reasonably incidental to the construction of the dwelling. The court emphasised the importance of interpreting the statutory definitions in light of the broader purpose of the Act, which is to protect consumers engaged in home building contracts. The court concluded that the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of the relevant provisions and allowed the appeal.
The court's decision was that the appeal was allowed, and the trial judge's findings were set aside. The court's judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of "home building work" and "associated work" under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), ensuring that the protections afforded to consumers in home building contracts are properly applied. This decision will be of particular interest to builders, contractors, and consumers involved in home building projects in New South Wales.
The court had to determine whether the installation of the wooden floor fell within the definition of "home building work" under the Act, which includes work done in connection with the construction, alteration, addition or extension of a dwelling. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the floor installation was "associated work" as defined in the Act, which includes work done in connection with the construction of a dwelling that is not itself home building work but is reasonably incidental to it. The court also had to consider the practical implications of these definitions and how they applied to the specific circumstances of the case.
In resolving these issues, the court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the legislative intent behind them. The court found that the installation of the wooden floor was indeed home building work as it was directly connected to the construction of the house. Furthermore, the court held that the floor installation was associated work because it was reasonably incidental to the construction of the dwelling. The court emphasised the importance of interpreting the statutory definitions in light of the broader purpose of the Act, which is to protect consumers engaged in home building contracts. The court concluded that the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of the relevant provisions and allowed the appeal.
The court's decision was that the appeal was allowed, and the trial judge's findings were set aside. The court's judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of "home building work" and "associated work" under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), ensuring that the protections afforded to consumers in home building contracts are properly applied. This decision will be of particular interest to builders, contractors, and consumers involved in home building projects in New South Wales.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.