Anderson v Gold Emporium Pty Ltd t/a Cordony Constructions (No 2) [2023] NSWCATCD 43

Anderson v Gold Emporium Pty Ltd t/a Cordony Constructions (No 2) [2023] NSWCATCD 43

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to replace the work order with a monetary order because the applicants' building claim had already been determined by the decision of 21 June 2022 and the Tribunal was functus officio. Section 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) did not apply because no obvious textual error was alleged, and clause 8 of schedule 4 was not engaged because the time for compliance with the work order had not expired. The matters raised by the applicants could only have been raised, if at all, by appeal within the applicable time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Miscellaneous Orders in a Home Building Matter / On the Papers After Dismissal of Appeal; Application to Replace a Work Order With a Monetary Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; hearing dispensed with.
Legal Topics
['home Building Act Work Orders' 'tribunal Jurisdiction After Final Orders' 'functus Officio' 'correction of Errors in Tribunal Decisions' 'renewal of Proceedings' 'costs']
['building and Construction' 'administrative Law'] ['home Building Act Work Orders' 'tribunal Jurisdiction After Final Orders' 'functus Officio' 'correction of Errors in Tribunal Decisions' 'renewal of Proceedings' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Miscellaneous Orders in a Home Building Matter / On the Papers After Dismissal of Appeal; Application to Replace a Work Order With a Monetary Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to replace a work order made on 21 June 2022 with a monetary order.' 'Whether new evidence or alleged error in the original decision permitted the Tribunal to revisit final orders.' 'Whether clause 8 of schedule 4 to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) permitted renewal of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to replace the work order with a monetary order because the applicants' building claim had already been determined by the decision of 21 June 2022 and the Tribunal was functus officio. Section 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) did not apply because no obvious textual error was alleged, and clause 8 of schedule 4 was not engaged because the time for compliance with the work order had not expired. The matters raised by the applicants could only have been raised, if at all, by appeal within the applicable time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; hearing dispensed with.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) a hearing in respect of the application for miscellaneous matters filed by the applicants on 9 February 2023 is dispensed with.' "The applicants' application for a money order in place of order 1 made on 21 June 2022 is dismissed." "The...