Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Parry-Husbands v Roffe (No 2) [2024] NSWCATCD 16 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 15 January 2024 Decision date: 15 January 2024 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G Sarginson, Senior Member Decision: (1) An oral hearing is dispensed with under s 50 (2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
(2) The stay granted by reason of order 2 of the Tribunal dated 1 December 2023 is lifted.
(3) The respective costs applications of the parties are dismissed.
(4) There is no order as to costs in respect of the application to transfer the NCAT proceedings to the District Court of NSW.
(5) Costs of the transfer application are costs in the cause of the transferred proceedings.
Catchwords: COSTS---Transfer of proceedings from NCAT to District Court---r 38 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014---Calderbank offer---Whether unreasonably rejected---Whether cost order should be made in respect of the transfer of proceedings
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Boland v MGF Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 451
Elite Protective Personel Pty Ltd v Salmon (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 373
Miwa Pty Ltd v Siantan Properties Pte Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 344
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11
Smith v Baker [2022] NSWSC 1521
State of NSW & Anor v The Broken Hill Town Employees Union on behalf of employees [2022] NSWSC 961
State of NSW v Stanley [2007] NSWCA 330
SW v The Sydney Children’s Hospital’s Network t/as Westmead Children’s Hospital
Swan v All Construction Engineering Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 665
Tati v Stonewall Hotel Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 124
Texts Cited: Judicial Commission of NSW Civil Bench Book-Costs
Category: Costs Parties: Howard Keith Parry-Husbands (First Applicant)
Sharyn Ann Parry-Husbands (Second Applicant)
Danielle Phillipa Geraldine Roffe (First Respondent)
Yair Nassi (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J. Pokoney (Applicants)
P. Wiggins (Respondents)
CCS Legal Pty Ltd (Applicants)
SGJ Law (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2023/00400405 (Previously HB 23/16800) Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
This is a cost application arising from a decision of the Tribunal to transfer proceedings brought in the Tribunal by current owners of a residential property against the respondents under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (HB Act) to the District Court of NSW.
-
The application to transfer proceedings was contested, with both parties briefing Counsel.
-
The Tribunal gave a detailed written judgment dated 1 December 2023 setting out its reasons as to why the proceedings were transferred to the District Court under cl. 6 of sch. 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act).
-
This cost decision is to be read in conjunction with the reasons expressed in the decision of 1 December 2023.
-
Both parties have filed and served costs submissions (which included documentary material including a Calderbank offer by…
Continue reading Parry-Husbands v Roffe (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Parry-Husbands v Roffe (No 2) [2024] NSWCATCD 16
- Case
- [2024] NSWCATCD 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the applicants unreasonably rejected a Calderbank offer in relation to the transfer of the proceedings and whether an order for costs should be made as a result. The court was also required to determine whether the transfer application should be dismissed on other grounds. The court noted that the applicants had not unreasonably rejected the Calderbank offer and that the transfer application should be dismissed on other grounds. The court found that there was no basis for an order for costs in relation to the transfer application.
The court found that the applicants had not unreasonably rejected the Calderbank offer. The court found that the applicants had provided a detailed and reasoned response to the offer and that the offer was not reasonable in the circumstances. The court found that the transfer application should be dismissed on other grounds. The court found that the transfer application was an abuse of process and that the respondents had acted unreasonably in bringing the application. The court found that there was no basis for an order for costs in relation to the transfer application.
The court dismissed the respondents’ application for costs in relation to the transfer of the proceedings to the District Court. The court lifted the stay of the NCAT proceedings and dismissed the respective costs applications of the parties. The court found that the costs of the transfer application were costs in the cause of the transferred proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) An oral hearing is dispensed with under s 50 (2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
(2) The stay granted by reason of order 2 of the Tribunal dated 1 December 2023 is lifted.
(3) The respective costs applications of the parties are dismissed.
(4) There is no order as to costs in respect of the application to transfer the NCAT proceedings to the District Court of NSW.
(5) Costs of the transfer application are costs in the cause of the transferred proceedings.
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.