Robert Hinkley v Ray Redgrave, RCR Management Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 133

Robert Hinkley v Ray Redgrave, RCR Management Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 133

The Tribunal answered that it had jurisdiction over the claim against RCR Management Pty Ltd because the statutory warranty aspect of the claim was within the seven-year period recognised by ss 18E and 48K(7) of the Home Building Act 1989 and RCR Management Pty Ltd had been joined with sufficient formality under s 48Q. The Tribunal declined to determine before trial whether Redgrave should remain a party and whether a contract existed because those questions depended on resolving conflicting evidence requiring oral testimony and cross-examination. The Tribunal also held that it had jurisdiction to deal with Civil Liability Act 2002 apportionment pleadings because the proceedings commenced...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Home Building Dispute / Determination of Agreed Preliminary Questions
Outcome
Preliminary questions determined in part: jurisdiction over RCR Management Pty Ltd and Civil Liability Act apportionment pleadings answered yes; questions concerning Redgrave as a party and contract existence deferred until trial.
Legal Topics
['building Claim Jurisdiction' 'statutory Warranties' 'joinder of Parties' 'proportionate Liability' 'contract Formation']
['home Building' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'civil Liability'] ['building Claim Jurisdiction' 'statutory Warranties' 'joinder of Parties' 'proportionate Liability' 'contract Formation']

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

Home Building Dispute / Determination of Agreed Preliminary Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Raymond Donald Redgrave should be a party to the proceedings.' "Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claim against RCR Management Pty Ltd." 'Whether a contract existed and, if so, who were the parties to that contract and what were its terms.' 'Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with pleadings derived from the Civil Liability Act 2002, specifically pleadings in relation to apportionment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal answered that it had jurisdiction over the claim against RCR Management Pty Ltd because the statutory warranty aspect of the claim was within the seven-year period recognised by ss 18E and 48K(7) of the Home Building Act 1989 and RCR Management Pty Ltd had been joined with sufficient formality under s 48Q. The Tribunal declined to determine before trial whether Redgrave should remain a party and whether a contract existed because those questions depended on resolving conflicting evidence requiring oral testimony and cross-examination. The Tribunal also held that it had jurisdiction to deal with Civil Liability Act 2002 apportionment pleadings because the proceedings commenced...

Court Disposition

Preliminary questions determined in part: jurisdiction over RCR Management Pty Ltd and Civil Liability Act apportionment pleadings answered yes; questions concerning Redgrave as a party and contract existence deferred until trial.

Orders

  • ['That the Registrar list the matter for directions not before 19 February 2014.']