Qi Y Ling and Bing Y Lin v Anil Beri [2014] NSWCATCD 225

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Qi Y Ling and Bing Y Lin v Anil Beri [2014] NSWCATCD 225 Hearing dates: 30 April 2014 Decision date: 18 November 2014 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G Meadows, Senior Member Decision: The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. Legislation Cited: Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Home Building Act 1989 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Qi Y Ling and Bing Y Lin – applicants Anil Beri – respondent Representation: Solicitors: Andresakis & Associates (applicant) Snelgroves (respondent) File Number(s): HB 13/37983 Publication restriction: Nil

reasons for decision

The Claim 1. In these reasons I refer to Anil Beri as "the builder" (in fact an owner/builder) and Qi Y Ling and Bing Y Lin as "the owners". 2. This application was filed on 21 May 2013. The application states the applicants are seeking an order that they are to be paid the amount of $225,955.00 and the total value of the claim is $500,000.00. The application states the dispute is about "Faulty Workmanship Report of G L Zakos dated 4/3/13 is attached". The amount of $225,955.00 is the total cost of rectification recommended by Mr Zakos in his report.

The Jurisdictional Issue 1. The builder has raised a jurisdictional issue, stating that the building works the subject of this claim were completed in 2003 and that the builder and his family occupied the premises from early in 2003. Various documents have been provided by the builder in support of that assertion. Pursuant to ss 48K(7) and 48K(3) of the Home Building Act 1989 ("the Act"), the builder submits that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction because the application was made more than 7 years after the date of completion of the building works or alternatively, more than 3 years after the supply of building goods and services. 2. The application is for breach of statutory warranties (based on my reading of Mr Zakos's report) and so the relevant time limitation is 7 years. 3. The only other evidence before me consists of documents produced in answer to a summons by Baulkham Hills Shire Council, now called The Hills Shire Council. 4. The owners claim that although the builder asserts that the works were completed in 2003, they rely on the allegation that in fact building works continued up until and including 2009. 5. It is not raised by either party, but for the sake of completeness, I note that pursuant to the transitional provisions in Schedule 1 to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ("CAT Act"), this application which commenced in the former Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal is now to be heard and determined in this Tribunal and that I am sitting as a Member of this Tribunal, although applying the law as it existed as if the CAT Act (and relevant associated legislation) had not been passed. I am not aware that there is any dispute in that regard.