NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: David Cameron Jones t/as Oz Style Homes v Panchal [2018] NSWCATAP 238 Hearing dates: 25 June 2018 Date of orders: 09 October 2018 Decision date: 09 October 2018 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: K Rosser, Principal Member D A C Robertson, Senior Member Decision: 1. Leave to appeal refused.
2. Appeal dismissed.
3. The stay of order 1 of the decision under appeal is lifted with immediate effect.
4. The Appellant pay the Respondents' costs of the Appeal as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building jurisdiction of the Tribunal – whether time limits on jurisdiction in s 48K of the Home Building Act apply separately to each claim brought in an application or whether each application constitutes one "building claim" – whether in considering whether to make a work order requiring rectification by the builder it is a relevant consideration that there are defects for which the builder has not been found liable which the home owner will need to employ other builders to rectify WORDS AND PHRASES – "building claim" Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) s 48A, s 48K, s 48MA Home Building Amendment Act 2011 (NSW) Home Building Amendment Act 2014 (NSW) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: Clyne v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 150 CLR 1 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) v Mutton (1988) 12 NSWLR 104 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Independent Liquor & Gaming Authority v Auld [2018) NSWCATAP 184 Marks v Stafflair [2012] NSWCTTT 199 Marsh v Linmore Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCTTT 672 McGraw-Hinds (Aust) Pty Ltd v Smith (1978) 144 CLR 633 Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418 Tinsley v Masterton Homes Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCTTT 26 Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491 Texts Cited: Pearce & Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia 8th edition 2014 Category: Principal judgment Parties: David Cameron Jones trading as Oz Style Homes (Appellant) Jayeshkumar Panchal and Archita Panchal (Respondents) Representation: Counsel: P Lonergan (Appellant) A Hopkins (Respondents)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate