NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Cully v Chaseling [2022] NSWCATCD 191 Hearing dates: 21 and 22 December 2020, 25 March 2021 and 23 August 2021 Date of orders: 27 September 2022 Decision date: 27 September 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: D Goldstein, Senior Member Decision: 1. Simon Chaseling must pay Ruth Cully $47,026.20. immediately. 2. In the event that a party wishes to bring a costs application, for the costs of expert witnesses and any other costs, the costs application must be lodged in the Tribunal and served on/given to the costs respondent within 14 days of the date of the orders in these proceedings either attaching or referring to the documents relied upon in support of the application. 3. The costs respondent will have 14 days after the date it receives the application to lodge in the Tribunal and serve on/give to the costs applicant its submissions, if any, in response to the costs application, such submissions either attaching or referring to the documents relied upon. 4. The parties must state in their submissions whether or not they consent to the costs application being determined on the basis of the parties written submissions and attached documents, if any, without the need for a hearing. 5. Subject to the parties' submissions, the Tribunal will determine any costs application made on the basis of the papers lodged in the Tribunal. Catchwords: BUILDING and CONSTRUCTION - Assessment of damage – Precise evidence of loss not provided – Mitigation of damages Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Fair Trading Act 1987 Home Building Act 1989 NSW Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 Cases Cited: Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Lyon v Frenbray Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 207 Owners Corporation SP 79417 v Trajcevski [2017] NSWCATAP 101 Sabouni v Revelop Building and Developments Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 31 The Owners - Strata Plan No 76674 v Di Blasio Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1067 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ruth Cully: Applicant Simon Chaseling: Respondent Representation: The parties were self-represented. File Number(s): HB 19/52325 Publication restriction: Nil
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