Fotedar v Francis [2014] NSWCATCD 182

Fotedar v Francis [2014] NSWCATCD 182

The owner had standing under s 18D as successor in title to the entity entitled to the statutory warranty, but the Tribunal found on the civil standard that 48 was practically completed in November 2006. Because the 7-year warranty period expired before the application was filed on 18 January 2014, the claim was out...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Application by a Home Owner Against an Owner Builder for Alleged Breach of Statutory Warranty Under S 18 B of the Home Building Act 1989 / Preliminary Issue of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was filed out of time.
Legal Topics
['statutory Warranties' 'successor in Title Standing' 'time Limit for Proceedings' 'practical Completion' 'owner Builder Work']
['home Building' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction'] ['statutory Warranties' 'successor in Title Standing' 'time Limit for Proceedings' 'practical Completion' 'owner Builder Work']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application by a Home Owner Against an Owner Builder for Alleged Breach of Statutory Warranty Under S 18 B of the Home Building Act 1989 / Preliminary Issue of Jurisdiction

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had standing to bring the application as a successor in title entitled to the benefit of statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989.' 'Whether the application was commenced within the time permitted for proceedings for breach of statutory warranties.' 'When practical completion of the residential building work occurred for the purposes of the Home Building Act 1989.' 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.']

Ratio Decidendi

The owner had standing under s 18D as successor in title to the entity entitled to the statutory warranty, but the Tribunal found on the civil standard that 48 was practically completed in November 2006. Because the 7-year warranty period expired before the application was filed on 18 January 2014, the claim was out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and determine it.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was filed out of time.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']