The Owners—Strata Plan No 79707 v ; Trilogy Capital Services Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 205

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners—Strata Plan No 79707 v ; Trilogy Capital Services Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 205 Hearing dates: 22 May 2014 Decision date: 06 November 2014 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G Meadows, Senior Member Decision: Trilogy Capital Services Pty Ltd is not a "Developer" in relation to the residential building work to the common property of Strata Plan No 79707. The matter is to be listed for directions in the event the application is not withdrawn. Catchwords: Home building-"developer"-"immediate successor in title Legislation Cited: Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Home Building Act 1989 Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Owners—Strata Plan No 79707 (applicant) Trilogy Capital Services Pty Ltd (respondent) Representation: Mr Blackwell for the applicant Mr De Buse for the respondent File Number(s): HB 13/56205 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Claim 1. In the background summary and the reasons which follow, it will be convenient to refer to the following parties: 1. The Owners—Strata Plan 79707: "the owners"; 2. Trilogy Capital Services Pty Ltd: "TCS"; 3. Trilogy Capital (Cremorne Developments) Pty Ltd: "TD"; and 4. Southern Cross Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd: "the builder". 1. The Preliminary issue for determination is: "Whether Trilogy Capital Services Pty Ltd … is a "Developer" in relation to the residential building work to the common property of Strata Plan No. 79707". Put shortly, the owners are seeking to proceed against TCS as a developer of the residential strata units in the subject building. There is a quite complicated history of both corporate transactions as well as the building works themselves and the claims arising from them. In order to understand the submissions of the parties it will be necessary to set out these various transactions in some detail, although in my opinion the determination is finally dependent on a straightforward application of the relevant law. 2. The reason the matter now appears so complicated is due to the facts that both the builder and TD are in liquidation or are otherwise unable to proceeded against for some similar corporate reason. The details have not been provided but the parties agree that neither TD nor the builder can be sued.