NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners - Strata Plan No 70762 v L & C Platt Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 31 Decision date: 03 April 2014 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: S Westgarth, Deputy President Decision: 1. The applicant is to pay 80% of the respondent's costs assessed on the ordinary basis.
Catchwords: Costs Legislation Cited: Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act (the CTTT Act)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the Act)Cases Cited: Latoudis v Casey [1990] 170CLR534
James and ORS v Surf Road Nominees Pty Ltd and ORS [2][2005] NSWCA296
Waters v PC Henderson (Aus) Pty Ltd unreported NSWCA
Arian v Nguyen [2001] NSWCA5
Hughes v Western Australia Cricket Association (1986) ATPR40-478Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Owners - Strata Plan No 70762 (applicant)
L & C Platt Constructions Pty Ltd (respondent)Representation: M J Dawson (for applicant)
M McCall (for respondent)
Vardenega Roberts (for applicant)
Stafford Lawyers (for respondent)
File Number(s): HB 09/24088 Publication restriction: Unrestricted
reasons for decision
Introduction
The applicant seeks an order that its costs be paid by the respondent, or in the alternative, that there be no order as to costs (meaning that each party should bear their own costs). The respondent seeks an order that the applicant pay its costs.
Both applications for costs arise out of a decision (the Decision) of this Tribunal dated 10 January 2014 in these proceedings in which the relevant substantive order (the Order) made was that the respondent is to pay the applicant $47,296.00. The breakdown of that amount is described in paragraph 129 of the Decision, namely as follows:
- $1,075.00 is constituted as an amount agreed between the parties at a conclave held between them prior to the hearing.
- $6,000.00 constitutes an amount found by the Tribunal to be due by the respondent in favour of the applicant in respect of incomplete work.
- Two amounts (one for $6,500.00 and the other for $33,721.00) being amounts which the respondent conceded after the hearing ought to be paid to the applicant. I will refer to these two amounts as the deposit /excess claim.
Jurisdiction
The proceedings were conducted in the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and the Decision was delivered after that Tribunal had been abolished. The provisions of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (the Act) provide for proceedings which span both the abolished Tribunal and the new Tribunal to be conducted in the new Tribunal in the manner described in schedule 1 of the Act. In particular schedule 1 of the Act provides that part heard proceedings in a former Tribunal are to continue in the new Tribunal and that the new Tribunal has and may exercise all the functions that the relevant existing Tribunal had immediately before its abolition (see clause 7, subdivision 2, division 3 of schedule 1 of the Act), and that the provisions of any Act that would have applied had the Act and relevant amending Acts not been…
- AGLC
- The Owners - Strata Plan No 70762 v L and C Platt Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 31
- Case
- [2014] NSWCATCD 31
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the terms of the building contract, the extent of the respondent's obligations under the contract, and the applicants' entitlement to costs in light of the outcome of the proceeding. The court had to determine whether the applicants had demonstrated a valid basis for their claims and whether the costs sought by the applicants were reasonable and proportionate.
The court found that while the applicants had established some valid claims against the respondent, these were not sufficient to warrant the imposition of full costs against the respondent. Instead, the court assessed the applicants' entitlement to costs and determined that they should bear a significant proportion of the overall costs. The court held that the applicants' claims were not entirely without merit, but their conduct in pursuing the matter contributed to an escalation of costs. Consequently, the court ordered that the applicants pay 80% of the respondent's costs assessed on the ordinary basis.
No further orders were made by the court. The decision underscores the importance of careful consideration of the proportionality and reasonableness of costs in construction disputes, particularly where the merits of a claim are not entirely clear-cut.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant is to pay 80% of the respondent's costs assessed on the ordinary basis.
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.