The Owners — Strata Plan No. 94514 v Bright Built Pty Ltd and Saade Construction Pty Ltd and Saade Construction Group Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATCD 4

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners — Strata Plan No. 94514 v Bright Built Pty Ltd and Saade Construction Pty Ltd and Saade Construction Group Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATCD 4 Hearing dates: On the papers (Costs) Date of orders: 04 September 2020 Decision date: 04 September 2020 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G Meadows Senior Member Decision: 1. The First and Third Respondents pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings; 2. No costs order in favour of or against the Second Respondent. Catchwords: HOME BUILDING — costs applications — confusion over correct identification of respondents — substantive proceedings largely settled by agreement — remaining issues determined by Tribunal — Offers of Settlement — Calderbank Offer — Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Category: Costs Parties: The Owners — Strata Plan No. 94514 — Applicant; Bright Built Pty Ltd — First Respondent; Saade Constructions Pty Ltd — Second Respondent; Saade Construction Group Pty Ltd — Third Respondent. Representation: Counsel: Michael Klooster — Respondents

Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers — Applicant; GS Law Group — Respondents File Number(s): HB 18/47472 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. Saade Construction Group Pty Ltd was the developer and Bright Built Pty Ltd was the builder of the premises in Burwood. I refer to these companies as the third respondent and the first respondent respectively. 2. The second respondent, Saade Constructions Pty Ltd was an associated company but at least by the time the hearing commenced it was agreed that it should not be a party to these proceedings and it was not involved in the development and building of the premises at any time. 3. As was made clear in the substantive determination and reasons published on 11 March 2020, the hearing proceeded on the basis that the facts in the previous paragraph were accurate but the applicant owners corporation did not formally seek that the second respondent be removed as a party. 4. The substantive orders related to the determination of the remaining general building defects still in dispute and to the precise terms of a proposed work order the terms of which had mostly been agreed. 5. It is clear that there were numerous defects in the remedial works were and were to be quite substantial. It is also clear that the parties had engaged in lengthy and consistent attempts to settle the proceedings prior to the hearing and that those efforts were partly but not entirely successful. 6. As I noted at paragraph 7 in the substantive reasons, the form of the Tribunal's determination was to be based on a number of documents, some of which were agreed and others with some items still in dispute to be determined by the Tribunal. 7. The published reasons included directions for any party to make an application for costs. The applicant on the one hand and the first and third respondents (the respondents) on the other each provided submissions effectively seeking costs orders. 8. The parties agreed that the costs decision should be made on the papers.