Chen v Jadco (NSW) Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2022] NSWCATCD 70

Chen v Jadco (NSW) Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2022] NSWCATCD 70

A stay of the earlier money order was refused due to lack of evidentiary basis and absence of risk as alleged by respondent. Costs were apportioned based on relative success of parties on separable claims: applicant awarded expert fees for defect claims, respondent awarded 85% of proceeding costs (excluding defects and delay claims), and applicant awarded costs of stay application, all to be assessed if not agreed.

Parties
Applicant: Lili Chen; Respondent: Jadco (NSW) Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Consumer and Commercial Division Proceeding / Cost and Stay Applications Following Principal Judgment
Outcome
Stay application refused; costs apportioned and orders made accordingly.
Legal Topics
Stay of Orders, Apportionment of Costs, Delay Damages, Defective Work Claims, Expert Fees
Civil Procedure Consumer Law Home Building Stay of Orders Apportionment of Costs Delay Damages Defective Work Claims Expert Fees

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lili Chen

Applicant

Jadco (NSW) Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer and Commercial Division Proceeding / Cost and Stay Applications Following Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of the money order should be granted pending resolution of costs application
  2. 2 Entitlement and apportionment of costs between the parties
  3. 3 Applicant's entitlement to recover expert fees

Ratio Decidendi

A stay of the earlier money order was refused due to lack of evidentiary basis and absence of risk as alleged by respondent. Costs were apportioned based on relative success of parties on separable claims: applicant awarded expert fees for defect claims, respondent awarded 85% of proceeding costs (excluding defects and delay claims), and applicant awarded costs of stay application, all to be assessed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Stay application refused; costs apportioned and orders made accordingly.

Orders

  • A hearing on stay and costs is dispensed with pursuant to section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
  • Jadco (NSW) Pty Ltd must pay Lili Chen the sum of $6,215.00 immediately.