Tudor Developments Pty Ltd v Makeig

[2008] NSWCA 263

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION:
TUDOR DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD v MAKEIG [2008] NSWCA 263

FILE NUMBER(S):
40783/07

HEARING DATE(S):
12 August 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 October 2008

PARTIES:
Tudor Developments Pty Ltd - Appellant
Kaye Janeice Makeig - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF:
Beazley JA Basten JA Handley AJA   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 3330/04

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Young CJ in Eq

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
9 October 2007;

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
[<i>Tudor Developments Pty Ltd v Makeig</i>] [2007] NSWSC 1116

COUNSEL:
J Agius SC/A Canceri - Appellant
G A Sirtes - Respondent

SOLICITORS:
James Lahood & Associates - Appellant
Somerville & Co - Respondent

CATCHWORDS:
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – separate question determined – where no evidence before primary judge – whether Court should rely on facts asserted in statement of claim and admitted by respondent
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – contracts for sale of land subject to residential building work – prohibition on contracts without certificate of insurance – purpose of prohibition – purchaser protection – consequences of contravening s 96A(1) – penalties – power to avoid – whether Part 6 of [<i>Home Building Act</i>] 1989 (NSW) can be excluded – whether general law principles of estoppel operate over s 96A(3) – [<i>Home Building Act</i>] 1989 (NSW) s 96A
CONTRACTS – statutory power to avoid contract – where failure to provide certificate of insurance for contract of sale of land subject to residential building work – scope of power – [<i>Home Building Act</i>] 1989 (NSW) s 96A
EQUITY – estoppel – election – whether estoppel qualifies power to avoid contract under s 96A of [<i>Home Building Act</i>] 1989 (NSW) – relationship between estoppel and election
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – purposive construction – statutory language – legislative history – consequences of failure to comply with prohibition on contracts for sale of land subject to residential building work without providing certificate of insurance – whether general law principles of estoppel operate over s 96A(3) – whether precluding reliance on estoppel unfair – consistency of s 96A(3) with s 103D – absence of protection against harsh consequences – predecessors to ss 96A and 103D – legislative history of builders’ insurance for residential building work – economic sanctions for non-compliance with insurance requirements – purpose of insurance schemes – purchaser protection – judicial consideration of similar legislation to interpret s 96A of [<i>Home Building Act</i>] 1989 (NSW) – [<i>Home Building Act</i>] 1989 (NSW) ss 96A, 103D, Part 6 – [<i>Builders Licensing Act</i>] 1971 (NSW) – [<i>Building Services Corporation Act</i>] 1989 (NSW) ss 94, 95, 97

LEGISLATION CITED:
[<i>Builders Licensing Act</i>] 1971 (NSW), ss 4, 34
[<i>Building Services Corporation Act</i>] 1989 (NSW), ss 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97
[<i>Home Building Act</i>] 1989 (NSW), ss 3A, 90, 92, 94, 96A, 99, 103D
[<i>Home Building Amendment Act</i>] 1999 (NSW), Schedule 1 [13]
[<i>Home Building Amendment Act</i>] 2000 (NSW), Schedule 1 [3], [4]
[<i>Home Building Legislation Amendment Act</i>] 2001 (NSW), Schedule 6 [18]
[<i>Home Building Amendment (Insurance) Act</i>]…