NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Singhota v Australian Luxury Living Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATCD 64 Hearing dates: 23 May 2023 Date of orders: 14 June 2023 Decision date: 14 June 2023 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: D Ziegler, Senior Member Decision: 1. The respondent is to pay the applicant $475,089.60 immediately. 2. The applicant is to file and serve submissions and documents on costs in both HB 22/26835 and HB 22/40388 by 14 days from the date of these orders. 3. The respondent is to file and serve submissions and documents on any costs applications in both HB 22/26835 and HB 22/40388 by 28 days from the date of these orders. 4. The applicant is to file and serve costs submissions in reply by 35 days from the date of these orders. 5. The costs submissions of the parties are to state whether the parties seek an oral hearing on the issue of costs, or consent to the applicant's costs application being determined on the papers in accordance with s 50 (2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). 6. The Tribunal may determine it appropriate to deal with any costs application on the papers and without a further oral hearing. Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – Defective building work – work order or money order – assessment of damages. Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules (NSW) 2014 Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Cases Cited: Deacon v National Strategic Constructions Pty Ltd; National Strategic Constructions Pty Ltd v Deacon [2017] NSWCATAP 185 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd v Marsden [2018] NSWCATAP 23 Leung v Alexakis [2018] NSWCATAP 11 McDonald v Dennys Lascelles Ltd [1933] HCA 25; (1933) 48 CLR 457 at 476-477 Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850; 154 ER 363 Robinson v Hindmarsh Construction Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 51 Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ranjit Singhota (Applicant) Australian Luxury Living Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: C Carter (Applicant)
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