VAUGHAN v ROBERTSON & 2 ORS [2002] NSWSC 708

VAUGHAN v ROBERTSON & 2 ORS [2002] NSWSC 708

Although one proposed appeal ground concerning s10 of the Home Building Act 1989 was more than reasonably arguable and other grounds were at least barely arguable, Adams J considered the Tribunal had accepted substantial failure by the builder and that alleged repayment difficulty was not enough to deny the clients the benefit of their judgment. The overall circumstances justified only a partial stay of $40,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for a Stay of a Judgment of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Arising Out of a Building Contract / Interlocutory Stay Application in the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Stay ordered as to $40,000 of the judgment; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['stay of Judgment' 'appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'home Building Act 1989 S10' 'building Contract Defects' 'reasons for Decision']
['administrative Law' 'building and Construction' 'civil Procedure'] ['stay of Judgment' 'appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'home Building Act 1989 S10' 'building Contract Defects' 'reasons for Decision']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for a Stay of a Judgment of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Arising Out of a Building Contract / Interlocutory Stay Application in the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a stay should be granted in respect of a judgment of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal pending appeal.' "Whether the builder had a reasonably arguable ground concerning the Tribunal's interpretation of s10 of the Home Building Act 1989." 'Whether alleged failures by the Tribunal to give reasons concerning liability for rectification and water damage supported a stay.' 'Whether hardship and possible difficulty recovering the judgment debt justified denying the clients the benefit of their judgment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although one proposed appeal ground concerning s10 of the Home Building Act 1989 was more than reasonably arguable and other grounds were at least barely arguable, Adams J considered the Tribunal had accepted substantial failure by the builder and that alleged repayment difficulty was not enough to deny the clients the benefit of their judgment. The overall circumstances justified only a partial stay of $40,000.

Court Disposition

Stay ordered as to $40,000 of the judgment; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Stay ordered as to $40,000 of the judgment.' 'Costs reserved.']