Constable v Anvic Holdings & Anor [2003] NSWSC 471

Constable v Anvic Holdings & Anor [2003] NSWSC 471

The Tribunal's finding that the supply of tiles by the first defendant did not constitute 'building goods or services' under the Home Building Act 1989 was correct, as the defendant was not contracted to do residential building work. Therefore, the claim was a 'consumer claim' with a $25,000 jurisdictional limit. No error of law or in the exercise of discretion as to costs was established.

Parties
Plaintiff: Robert Julian Constable; First Defendant: Anvic Holdings Pty Limited (Formerly Called Tilecraft (Aust) Pty Limited); Second Defendant: Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Regarding Orders Made 9 December 2002
Outcome
Summons dismissed. Plaintiff to pay costs. Question of indemnity costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Appeals, Costs, Building Claims, Consumer Claims, Interpretation of Statutory Definitions
Administrative Law Consumer Law Appeals Costs Building Claims Consumer Claims Interpretation of Statutory Definitions

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Julian Constable

Plaintiff

Anvic Holdings Pty Limited (Formerly Called Tilecraft (Aust) Pty Limited)

First Defendant

Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Regarding Orders Made 9 December 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the claim as a 'consumer claim' rather than a 'building claim' under the Home Building Act 1989 and Consumer Claims Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether there was error in the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion as to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's finding that the supply of tiles by the first defendant did not constitute 'building goods or services' under the Home Building Act 1989 was correct, as the defendant was not contracted to do residential building work. Therefore, the claim was a 'consumer claim' with a $25,000 jurisdictional limit. No error of law or in the exercise of discretion as to costs was established.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed. Plaintiff to pay costs. Question of indemnity costs reserved.

Orders

  • The Summons is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the Summons.