NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: De Marco v Macey [2021] NSWCATAP 291 Hearing dates: 2 November 2020 Date of orders: 28 September 2021 Decision date: 28 September 2021 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: T Simon, Principal Member G K Burton SC, Senior Member Decision: 1. Time for filing the appeal is extended to 8 July 2020. 2. The order made by the Tribunal on 8 July 2020 is varied to substitute for the builder to pay the owners the amount of $389,184 (instead of $317,919). 3. The appeal is otherwise dismissed 4. Order that the appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed, subject to any application for an alternative costs order. 5. Any application for an alternative costs order, together with evidence and submissions in support of the application, is to be filed and served within 14 days of the date of these orders. 6. Any evidence and submissions in response to an application for an alternative costs order is to be filed and served within 14 days thereafter. Catchwords: Home building – alleged procedural unfairness – alleged inadequate consideration of evidence - no issue of principle Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Downer EDI Rail PL v John Holland PL [2018] NSWSC 326 GPM Constructions PL v Baker [2018] NSWCATAP 119 Italiano v Carbone [2005] NSWCA 177 Karakominakis v Big Country Developments PL [2000] NSWCA 313 O'Neill v T & I Engines PL [2015] NSWCATAP 77 Owners SP 76674 v Di Blasio Constructions PL [2014] NSWSC 1067 Owners SP 78465 v MD Constructions PL [2016] NSWSC 162 Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69 TCN Channel 9 PL v Hayden Enterprises PL (1989) 16 NSWLR 130 Unity Insurance Brokers PL v Rocco Pezzano PL (1998) 192 CLR 603 Wootten v Godfrey [2019] NSWCATAP 255 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Godfrey Charles De Marco (Appellant) David and Debbie Macey (Respondents) Representation: Counsel: Mr C Lambert (Appellant) Mr C Mobellen (Respondents)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate