Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Bruno Pisano -v- Georgia Dandris [2014] NSWSC 1071 Hearing dates: 3 July 2014 Decision date: 03 July 2014 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Technology and Construction List Before: Hammerschlag J Decision: Application to amend dismissed Catchwords: APPLICATION to amend - no issue of principle Legislation Cited: Home Building Regulation 2004 (NSW) Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Bruno Pisano - First Plaintiff Sia Pisano - Second Plaintiff Georgia Dandris - First Defendant Patrick Francis Williams - Second Defendant Angus Levitt Pty Limited - Third Defendant Representation: Counsel: D.S. Weinberger - Plaintiffs J.A. Jobson - First Defendant S. Jacobs - Second Defendant Solicitors: Gadens Lawyers - Plaintiffs Zelden Solicitors - First Defendant Alexanders Lawyers - Second Defendant File Number(s): 2012/283119 EX TEMPORE Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: This is the eighth day of a trial and the day upon which all evidence, lay and expert, has been completed. 2At about 3.15pm today, the first defendant moved an application to raise a new matter in defence of the claim. The proposed new contention is based on Home Building Regulation 2004. Regulation 9 excludes from the definition of "residential building work" in s 3.(1) of the Home Building Act 1989 ("the Act") the supervision only of residential building work by a person supervising owner builder work for no reward or other consideration. It is proposed to contend that the first defendant is such a person and to plead that what she did was no more than supervision of owner builder work for no reward or other consideration. 3Clearly, the matter now sought to be raised is one that must be specifically pleaded. More than that, in the course of the proceedings a formal admission was made by the first defendant that by virtue of s 18(c) of the Act, she owes the statutory warranties to the plaintiffs. The case has undoubtedly been conducted by the plaintiffs on the footing that neither the first defendant's status as an owner builder nor the applicability of the warranties given by the Act is in issue. 4The explanation for the lateness of the application is that the lawyers only came across the point in the last 24 hours. 5The application must be dismissed. To grant it would be inimical to the just, quick and cheap disposition of the real issues in the proceedings. The plaintiffs have cross-examined both the first and second defendants on the footing that the availability of the statutory warranties is not in issue. 6The inevitable result of granting the amendment would be the refocus by the plaintiffs of cross-examination. I have no doubt that the plaintiffs will suffer forensic prejudice if the amendment is allowed. This is sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. 7More than that, however, I am not persuaded that the matter sought to be relied upon has any realistic prospect of success. The Regulation does not exempt the first defendant in any event. She is an owner builder who carried out work, not a person who supervised residential work being carried out by an owner builder. 8Additionally, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, and only the conclusion, that the first defendant's role extended beyond only supervision. 9Finally, there is one day left in the case. Usually, as Technology and Construction List Judge I would sit tomorrow (Friday) in that and the Commercial List but I am not doing so, so as to facilitate the completion of this case. I would not be able to sit in this case for some weeks, even months, were it not to be completed tomorrow. 10The application is dismissed. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 08 August 2014