Laurence and Tanya Matty v Scott and Julie Boyd t/as Vast Constructions [2015] NSWCATAP 100

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Laurence and Tanya Matty v Scott and Julie Boyd t/as Vast Constructions [2015] NSWCATAP 100 Hearing dates: 24 March 2015 Date of orders: 25 May 2015 Decision date: 25 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: Dr JG Renwick SC, Senior Member Ms K Rosser, Senior Member Decision: The appeal is allowed in part. Order 2 made on 28 October 2014 is set aside. The appellants are to pay the respondents the sum of $20,130.86 forthwith. The appeal is otherwise dismissed. Catchwords: Appeal – substantial miscarriage of justice – not fair and equitable Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Home Building Act 1989 Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Laurence and Tanya Matty – appellants Scott and Julie Boyd - respondents Representation: Both parties self-represented File Number(s): AP 14-54324 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Date of Decision: 28 October 2014 Before: Mr G Meadows, Senior Member File Number(s): HB 14/02361

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. Some years ago, the respondent undertook building work for the applicants in their home. They were dissatisfied with aspects of that work and began proceedings in the Consumer Trading and Tenancy Tribunal, the predecessor to the Tribunal, ('the former Tribunal'). On 2 October 2013, the former Tribunal made completion and rectification orders which are noted below and required those works to be done within 90 days. On completion of those works the applicants were to pay the respondent the sum of $26,450.36. 2. In 2014 this Tribunal began operation. By operation of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ('the Act') Schedule 4 Clause 8 an application for renewal of orders made by the former Tribunal could be made to the Tribunal. The applicants made such an application. It was heard by the Tribunal member who had made the original orders in 2013 in the former Tribunal. The Tribunal has a discretion in considering whether or not to grant a renewal application. On 28 October 2014 the Tribunal refused the application to renew, the ultimate finding being that the earlier Orders 1 and 2 (that is to say, the rectification and certification orders) had been complied with, "to the extent that the respondent was permitted by the applicants to do so". The applicants were then ordered to pay the previously ordered sum "forthwith". 3. There being no question of law identified by the applicants, leave to appeal is sought on the grounds that the decision was unfair and inequitable and against the weight of evidence. For the following reasons, we have decided to grant leave and allow the appeal in relation to the cost of the applicants procuring the engineering certificates which the respondent had previously been ordered to obtain. We otherwise refuse leave and dismiss the appeal.