Gunn & Anor v Steain & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1076

Gunn & Anor v Steain & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1076

There was no error of law in the Tribunal's finding that the second period of work performed by the defendant was supervisory and exempt from 'residential building work' under the regulations, and properly excluded for the purposes of calculating the limitation period. The Tribunal's findings on the limitation period and definition issues were open on the facts. There was no denial of procedural fairness, as parties were permitted written submissions and neither applied to reopen evidence. The award of costs followed established principles, with no error identified.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Patrick Gunn; Second Plaintiff: Lesley White; First Defendant: Eric Steain; Second Defendant: E Steain Investments Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Procedural Fairness, Limitation Period, Definition of Owner Builder, Award of Costs
Administrative Law Building and Construction Law Jurisdiction of Tribunal Procedural Fairness Limitation Period Definition of Owner Builder Award of Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Gunn

First Plaintiff

Lesley White

Second Plaintiff

Eric Steain

First Defendant

E Steain Investments Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in finding it had no jurisdiction to determine the plaintiffs' claim due to limitation period
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs were denied procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether costs were correctly awarded against the plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error of law in the Tribunal's finding that the second period of work performed by the defendant was supervisory and exempt from 'residential building work' under the regulations, and properly excluded for the purposes of calculating the limitation period. The Tribunal's findings on the limitation period and definition issues were open on the facts. There was no denial of procedural fairness, as parties were permitted written submissions and neither applied to reopen evidence. The award of costs followed established principles, with no error identified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed
  • The amended summons filed 29 April 2003 is dismissed