Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Vattoly v Baytek Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATCD 28 Hearing dates: 13 February 2024 Date of orders: 20 February 2024 Decision date: 20 February 2024 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: Graham Ellis SC, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Respondent is to pay the Applicants $109,213.33 immediately.
(2) The Respondent is to pay the costs of the Applicants, on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.
(3) If either party wishes to contend that a different costs order should be made, order 2 ceases to have effect and the following orders apply:
(a) Any application for a different costs order is to be filed and served, supported by submissions (not exceeding five pages in length) and evidence within 14 days of the date of these orders.
(b) Any submissions (not exceeding five pages in length) and evidence in response are to be file and served with the following 14 days.
(c) Any submissions in reply (not exceeding two pages in length) and evidence in reply are to be filed and served within the following 7 days.
(d) Any such submissions are to include an indication of whether it is accepted that the Tribunal make an order, under s 52 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), dispensing with a hearing as to costs.
Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Whether contracts validly terminated – assessment of damages for delay, failure to provide occupation certificate, incomplete work and defective work
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW)
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
Cases Cited: 203 Castlereagh Street Pty Limited v Skybloo Holdings Pty Limited [2017] NSWCATAP 29
Bonita v Shen [2016] NSWCATAP 159
Brooks v Gannon Constructions Pty Limited
Commonweatlh v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd
Galdona v Peacock [2017] NSWCATAP 64
Gallagher v Masters Installation Pty Ltd
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
Haines v Bendall [1991] HCA 15
Gerrard v Slamar [2004] WASC 253
Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59
News v Cotes [2019] NSWCATAP 186
Oshlak v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11
Pacorp Holdings Pty Ltd v Waller
Texts Cited: None cited
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Applicants – Baiju John Vattoly, Jincy Jose
Respondent – Baytek Constructions Pty LtdRepresentation: Applicants – Self-represented
Respondent – No appearance
File Number(s): 2023/00379241 (formerly HB 23/38898) Publication restriction: Nil
Reasons for decision
Outline
-
The applicants (the owners) alleged incomplete and defective work by the respondent (the builder). They also made a delay claim as well as a failure to provide documents required for the owners to obtain an occupation certificate.
-
The Tribunal determined that the contracts in question had been validly terminated and that the owners were entitled to be awarded damages for (1) delay, (2) failure to provide an occupation certificate, (3) incomplete work, and (4) defective work, but that the…
Continue reading Vattoly v Baytek Constructions Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Vattoly v Baytek Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATCD 28
- Case
- [2024] NSWCATCD 28
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court was required to address were whether the contracts were validly terminated and, if not, the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded for the delays, failure to provide an occupation certificate, incomplete work, and defective work. The court was also required to consider the costs implications of the review application.
In its decision, the court found that the CAT was correct in its determination that the contracts were validly terminated. The court affirmed the CAT's assessment of damages for delays, failure to provide an occupation certificate, incomplete work, and defective work. The court rejected Baytek Constructions' arguments that the CAT erred in its assessment of damages. The court held that the CAT's findings were supported by the evidence and that the CAT had exercised its discretion reasonably in determining the quantum of damages.
In light of the court's decision, it ordered that Baytek Constructions pay Vattoly $109,213.33 immediately. The court also ordered that Baytek Constructions pay Vattoly's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed. The court provided detailed procedural orders for any party wishing to contend that a different costs order should be made, including strict time limits and page limits for submissions and evidence.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The Respondent is to pay the Applicants $109,213.33 immediately.
(2) The Respondent is to pay the costs of the Applicants, on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.
(3) If either party wishes to contend that a different costs order should be made, order 2 ceases to have effect and the following orders apply:
(a) Any application for a different costs order is to be filed and served, supported by submissions (not exceeding five pages in length) and evidence within 14 days of the date of these orders.
(b) Any submissions (not exceeding five pages in length) and evidence in response are to be file and served with the following 14 days.
(c) Any submissions in reply (not exceeding two pages in length) and evidence in reply are to be filed and served within the following 7 days.
(d) Any such submissions are to include an indication of whether it is accepted that the Tribunal make an order, under s 52 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), dispensing with a hearing as to costs.
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.