Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Patel v Globe Ventures Aust Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWCATCD 64 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 30 June 2025 Decision date: 30 June 2025 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G Sarginson, Deputy President Decision: (1) A hearing on the issue of costs is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
(2) The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords: COSTS – r 38 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) – owner the successful party – owner unsuccessful on some defect items – proportionate costs order inappropriate– order each party bear is own costs inappropriate – respondent to pay applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW)
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 304
Correa v Whittingham (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 471
Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd v Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 219
Hogan v Trustee of the Roman Catholic Church (No 2) [2006] NSWSC 74
Moseley v AB (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1812
Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72
Smith’s Snackfood Co Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2013] NSWCA 470
The Owners-Strata Plan No 63341 v Malachite Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 256
Tomanovic v Global Mortgage Equity Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 256
Texts Cited: None cited
Category: Costs Parties: Dhara Chintan Patel (Applicant)
Globe Ventures Aust Pty Ltd (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Birch Partners (Applicant)
NOH Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/00393587 Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
This is a costs application arising from the substantive decision dated 12 December 2024. The costs application has been made in accordance with the procedural orders in the substantive decision.
-
In this decision, any reference to “the homeowner,” is a reference to the applicant. Any reference to “the builder” is a reference to the respondent.
-
This cost decision is to be read in conjunction with the substantive decision.
-
The substantive proceedings involved an application under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) (HB Act) brought by a homeowner against a builder. The proceedings were filed on 29 May 2023. In the application filed with the Tribunal, the homeowner sought “an order to do work or services as stated below to the approximate value of $100,000”. The homeowner believes that there were building defects, including the defects causing water ingress.
-
In the course of the proceedings, parties were granted leave to be legally represented. The homeowner was legally represented. The builder was self-represented until the costs submissions, which were prepared by a lawyer.
-
The homeowner filed and served Points Of Claim in September 2023. The Points Of Claim identify…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Patel v Globe Ventures Aust Pty Ltd (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] NSWCATCD 64
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate costs order in light of the outcome of the dispute. The primary legal issue was whether Mr Patel, who was successful on some counts but not others, was entitled to proportionate costs, or if the respondent should bear its own costs. The court also needed to decide whether an order for each party to bear their own costs was suitable given the circumstances. This involved a consideration of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW), specifically rule 38, which addresses costs.
The tribunal held that a proportionate costs order was not appropriate as Mr Patel, though successful on some issues, was not entirely successful overall. The tribunal also deemed it inappropriate for each party to bear their own costs given the nature of the dispute and the outcome. The tribunal concluded that the respondent should pay the applicant's costs, either as agreed or assessed, in line with the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW). This decision was based on the fact that the respondent was unsuccessful in the main aspects of the dispute, thereby justifying the applicant's entitlement to costs.
The tribunal further ordered that a hearing on the issue of costs was not necessary, pursuant to section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The tribunal mandated that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed. This order was intended to reflect the outcome of the proceedings, where the applicant achieved partial success, and the respondent's failure in the main aspects of the dispute.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) A hearing on the issue of costs is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
(2) The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed.
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.