Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd v KR Properties Global Pty Ltd trading as AK Properties Group ABN 62 971 068 965 (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 680

Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd v KR Properties Global Pty Ltd trading as AK Properties Group ABN 62 971 068 965 (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 680

The Owners' claim for Hungerfords interest against Mr Kazzi was rejected because their case under the DBP Act was not established due to insufficiently developed submissions and a failure to prove the causal connection between defects and individual costs. The claim for payment of the two additional invoices is allowed against the Builder but not against Mr Kazzi. The Owners' attempt to attribute rectification costs using invoice descriptions post-judgment was not permitted as the case was not run on that basis at trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders / Post Judgment; Consideration of Matters Not Addressed in Principal Judgment
Outcome
Further finding made regarding two invoices; other matters not re-examined.
Legal Topics
['consequential Orders' 'hungerfords Interest' 'rectification Costs' 'design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (nsw)' 'procedural Fairness']
['equity' 'civil Procedure' 'construction Law'] ['consequential Orders' 'hungerfords Interest' 'rectification Costs' 'design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (nsw)' 'procedural Fairness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Consequential Orders / Post Judgment; Consideration of Matters Not Addressed in Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Hungerfords interest should be awarded against Mr Kazzi as well as the Builder' 'Whether additional invoices of 30 June 2017 and 22 November 2017 should be allowed against the Builder' 'Whether the Court should have examined individual invoices to determine rectification costs after judgment']

Ratio Decidendi

The Owners' claim for Hungerfords interest against Mr Kazzi was rejected because their case under the DBP Act was not established due to insufficiently developed submissions and a failure to prove the causal connection between defects and individual costs. The claim for payment of the two additional invoices is allowed against the Builder but not against Mr Kazzi. The Owners' attempt to attribute rectification costs using invoice descriptions post-judgment was not permitted as the case was not run on that basis at trial.

Court Disposition

Further finding made regarding two invoices; other matters not re-examined.

Orders

  • ["Owner's claim for two specified invoices is allowed against the Builder only; claim for Hungerfords interest against Mr Kazzi is rejected; other application matters not re-opened, parties to confer on final orders."]