NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Beecraft Pty Ltd v Tudor;Tudor v Beecraft Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 119 Hearing dates: 22, 23 November 2021 Date of orders: 13 December 2021 Decision date: 13 December 2021 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: Graham Ellis SC, Senior Member Decision: In HB 20/52532: 1. The application is dismissed by reason of the orders made in the related proceedings (HB 21/12757). 2. Any submissions as to costs are to be included in submissions made in those related proceedings. In HB 21/12757: 1. The respondent (builder) is to pay the applicants (owners) $44,985.82 immediately. 2. Any submissions the respondent wishes to make as to costs are to be filed and served on or before 24 December 2021. 3. If such submissions are lodged, any submissions in response from the applicants are to be filed and served on or before 14 January 2022. 4. Any such submissions are to indicate whether it is agreed that costs should be decided on the papers, ie without the need for a further hearing. 5. Leave is granted for any submissions on the question of costs to be lodged electronically. Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Whether contract varied – Whether variation enforceable BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Quantum meruit claim assessed – Whether 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: Bonita v Shen [2016] NSWCATAP 159 Brambles Holdings Pty Limited v Bathurst City Council [2001] HCA 61 Brooks v Gannon Constructions Pty Limited [2017] NSWCATCD 12 County Securities Pty Ltd v Challenger Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 193 Day v Quince's Quality Building Services [2021] NSWCATAP 296 Galdona v Peacock [2017] NSWCATAP 64 Kalokineros v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 312 Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd v Marsden [2018] NSWCATAP 23 Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59 Lym International Pty Ltd v Marcolongo [2011] NSWCA 303 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305 Mann v Paterson Constructions [2019] HCA 32 Nationwide Builders Pty Ltd v Le Roy [2019] NSWCATAP 220 News v Cotes [2019] NSWCATAP 186 Oshlak v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11 Paraiso v CBS Build Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 190 Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul [1987] HCA 5 Taylor v Johnson [1983] HCA 5 The Owners – Strata Plan No 76674 v Di Blasio Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1067 Thompson v Chapman [2016] NSWCATAP 6 Tom v Jenkins [2018] NSWCATCD 24 Xu v Jinhong Design & Constructions Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 277 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: In HB 20/52532: Beecraft Pty Ltd (Applicant) Barry Tudor and Karina Tudor (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