Craig & Davison v M2 Haus Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWCATCD 46

Craig & Davison v M2 Haus Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWCATCD 46

Rule 38 applies because the amount in dispute exceeded $30,000; the applicants were successful and are entitled to recover specified costs. There is no basis for the builder's costs claim as it was not successful and there was no more generous offer.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application (consumer and Commercial Division) / Post Final Substantive Decision, Costs Determination
Outcome
Applicants' costs application allowed; respondent to pay costs. Respondent's costs application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'home Building Disputes']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer Law'] ['costs' 'home Building Disputes']

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

Costs Application (consumer and Commercial Division) / Post Final Substantive Decision, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded and in what amount under section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and Rule 38 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules']

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 38 applies because the amount in dispute exceeded $30,000; the applicants were successful and are entitled to recover specified costs. There is no basis for the builder's costs claim as it was not successful and there was no more generous offer.

Court Disposition

Applicants' costs application allowed; respondent to pay costs. Respondent's costs application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 50 (2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014, a hearing of the cost applications is dispensed with.' 'M2 Haus Pty Ltd is to pay Nathan Craig and Danielle Davison the sum of $4159.22 on or before 30 April 2023.' "The Builder's claim for costs is dismissed."]