The Owners – Strata Plan 65111 v Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 909

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners – Strata Plan 65111 v Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 909 Hearing dates: On the papers, submissions received 22 and 23 June 2016 Decision date: 01 July 2016 Jurisdiction: Equity - Technology and Construction List Before: Stevenson J Decision: Referee's report to be adopted in full Catchwords: PRACTICE – reference out by court of entire proceedings to referee – whether report should be adopted – earlier finding that referee correctly construed contract – consideration of remaining objections to adoption of report Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Cases Cited: Bellgrove v Eldridge [1954] HCA 36; 90 CLR 613 Radford v De Froberville [1977] 1 WLR 1262 Tabcorp Holdings Pty Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8; 236 CLR 272 The Owners – Strata Plan 65111 v Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 650 Wenco Industrial Pty Ltd v WW Industries Pty Ltd [2009] VSCA 191; 25 VR 119 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: The Owners – Strata Plan 65111 (Plaintiff/Respondent) Meriton Apartments Pty Limited (Defendant/Applicant) Representation: Counsel: T Davie (Plaintiff/Respondent) F Corsaro SC (Defendant/Applicant)

Solicitors: Bannermans Lawyers (Plaintiff/Respondent) N Malouf (Defendant/Applicant) File Number(s): SC 2008/290601

Judgment 1. On 20 May 2016 I published a judgment dealing with the proper construction of the Settlement Deed made between the parties on 30 September 2002; The Owners – Strata Plan 65111 v Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 650. 2. I decided that the referee had correctly construed the Settlement Deed. 3. I then invited submissions as to any other issues requiring decision in order to determine whether the referee's report of 28 August 2015 should be adopted. 4. I have now received written submissions from both parties, who agree that I may decide the matter on the papers. 5. Only two issues were raised (by Meriton). 6. In considering those issues, I will use the same abbreviations as in the judgment of 20 May 2016. These reasons assume familiarity with my earlier judgment.