So v CSR Building Products Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 285

So v CSR Building Products Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 285

The previous Tribunal and court decisions determined that Fibopo, not the appellant, was the contracting party with the respondent, and therefore the respondent was not obliged to provide Home Owners Warranty insurance to the appellant. The consent order of 12 September 2014 did not determine the identity of the contracting parties, nor did it obligate the respondent to provide such insurance. The appeal was misconceived and lacked a tenable basis in law or fact.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['consent Orders' 'contracting Parties' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'jurisdiction of Tribunal' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'building and Construction'] ['consent Orders' 'contracting Parties' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'jurisdiction of Tribunal' '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

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the identity of contracting parties contrary to previous consent orders' 'Whether the Tribunal was bound by or altered the consent orders of 12 September 2014' 'Whether the respondent was obliged to provide Home Owners Warranty (HOW) insurance under the Home Building Act 1989' 'Whether prior decisions created an issue estoppel on contracting parties and insurance obligations']

Ratio Decidendi

The previous Tribunal and court decisions determined that Fibopo, not the appellant, was the contracting party with the respondent, and therefore the respondent was not obliged to provide Home Owners Warranty insurance to the appellant. The consent order of 12 September 2014 did not determine the identity of the contracting parties, nor did it obligate the respondent to provide such insurance. The appeal was misconceived and lacked a tenable basis in law or fact.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed' "Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed, or as assessed, but such costs are not to exceed $5,000.00"]