Glover v Buckton Building Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 146

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Glover v Buckton Building Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 146 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 01 December 2015 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: N Vrabac Senior Member Decision: The respondent is to pay 60% of the applicants' costs as assessed or as agreed. The respondent's application for costs is dismissed. Catchwords: Costs Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (NSW) 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules (NSW) 2014 Home Building Act 1989 Cases Cited: Dehn v Honeman [2015] NSWSC 773 Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex Parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6. Category: Costs Parties: Mark and Pamela Glover (applicants) Buckton Building Company Pty Ltd (respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Wilde Legal for the applicant Nexus Law Group for the respondents File Number(s): HB 14/28938 Publication restriction: Unrestricted

reasons for Decision

Background 1. On or around 2 December 2009 the applicants and the respondent commenced discussions for the construction of a new dwelling. 2. On or about 7 September 2012 the applicants and the respondent entered into a contract for the construction of a dwelling. 3. The contract price was $302,650.00. 4. On or around 4 October 2012 the construction of the dwelling commenced. There were several variations to the construction contract. 5. The applicants did some of the building work themselves. 6. Discussions about defective work started around October 2012. In December 2012 the applicants complained about the marked difference in the colour of bricks. There were several meetings between the parties, the manufacturer and the bricklayer to resolve those issues. 7. The respondent made a cash offer to resolve the dispute. The parties could not agree on the cash offer or on any of the proposed solutions. 8. On 6 May 2013 the applicants engaged legal representatives to assist in preparation of proceedings in the Tribunal regarding the defective work. 9. The proceedings against the respondent were commenced on 3 June 2014. 10. On 24 June 2013 the applicants terminated the building contract. 11. On 27 May 2015 the matter was listed for hearing. An agreement was reached between the parties on the day prior to the hearing. The respondent agreed to carry out rectification work in accordance with a scope of work contained in a Scott Schedule, dated 27 May 2015. The rectification work was to commence within 42 days of the date of the consent orders. 12. The parties agreed that costs should be dealt with on the basis of written submissions filed and served by each of them. 13. Both parties seek costs in relation to the substantive application.