So v CSR Building Products Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 285

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: So v CSR Building Products Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 285 Hearing dates: 15 September 2015 Date of orders: 24 December 2015 Decision date: 24 December 2015 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: S Westgarth, Deputy President S Thode, Senior Member Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed;

(2) Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed, or as assessed, but such costs are not to exceed $5,000.00. Catchwords: Consent orders - Appeal costs - Section 60 Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act NSW 2013 Cases Cited: Alexandre Alexandrovic Kovalev v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 557 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kai Wing So (appellant) CSR Building Products Ltd (respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr Bors (Respondent)

Solicitors: Colin Biggers and Paisley (Respondent) File Number(s): AP 15/42894 Publication restriction: Unrestricted Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Citation: Not applicable Date of Decision: 09 July 2015 Before: P Briggs, General Member File Number(s): HB 15/17105

reasons for decision

Introduction 1. This is an appeal filed on 15 July 2015 from a decision of the Tribunal in the Consumer and Commercial Division delivered on 9 July 2015. 2. The decision of 9 July 2015 resulted in the dismissal of the appellant's application. The Tribunal's decision was, in summarised form, to this effect: 1. CSR (the respondent to this appeal and the respondent in the Consumer and Commercial Division application) and a company known as Fibopo Pty Ltd (Fibopo) were parties to a contact. The contract did not comply with s 7 of the Home Building Act 1989 (the HBA). 2. The contract was partly oral and partly in writing. The written part was contained in a quote issued by CSR. 3. CSR was a subcontractor to Fibopo and was not required to provide homeowners warranty insurance (HOW insurance) under the HBA. 1. The decision of 9 July 2015 arose out of an application lodged by the appellant in which the appellant sought the provision of HOW insurance from the respondent. The effect of the decision was that the respondent was not obliged to provide such insurance to the appellant. The appellant appeals that decision.