The Owners - Strata Plan No 87265 v Saaib; The Owners - Strata Plan No 87265 v Alexandrova

In the recent case before the New South Wales Supreme Court, The Owners – Strata Plan No 87265 filed a claim against Saaib and Alexandrova. The dispute primarily revolved around issues of agency, statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), and consumer law, particularly misleading or deceptive conduct. The Owners Corporation sought to hold Saaib and Alexandrova liable for various defects in a strata title property and for misleading representations made by an insurance broker regarding a home warranty insurance policy.

The court was tasked with determining whether Saaib had actual authority, implied or otherwise, to enter into a building contract on behalf of the builder, despite the builder not signing the contract himself. Additionally, the court had to decide if certain defects in the property were part of the lot property or common property, as well as whether the misleading representations by the insurance broker were sufficiently causative of the loss to the Owners Corporation. Another issue was whether evidence of Saaib's conduct in performing favours for friends could be admitted as tendency evidence regarding his conduct in a commercial development.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the builder's authority to enter into the building contract and found no evidence of actual authority or ratification by the builder. The court also determined that the defects in question were part of the common property under the strata scheme. Regarding the insurance policy, the court held that the misleading representations by the insurance broker were sufficiently causative of the loss to the Owners Corporation. The court found that evidence of Saaib's conduct in performing favours for friends was admissible as tendency evidence of his conduct in a commercial development. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of The Owners Corporation on these issues.

In summary, the court ruled that Saaib did not have the authority to enter into the building contract on behalf of the builder, and that the defects were part of the common property. The misleading representations by the insurance broker were found to be causative of the loss, and evidence of Saaib's conduct in performing favours for friends was deemed admissible. The final orders of the court were not specified in the provided text.