Laurence and Tanya Matty v Scott and Julie Boyd t/as Vast Constructions [2014] NSWCATCD 216

Laurence and Tanya Matty v Scott and Julie Boyd t/as Vast Constructions [2014] NSWCATCD 216

The right to renew the proceedings exists under the transitional provisions, but the applicants' actions in preventing reasonable access and joint inspections unreasonably hindered the respondent's ability to comply fully. The evidence showed substantial compliance by the respondent, and the applicants were not entitled to a money order or to withhold payment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Renewal Application / Decision on Renewal Application
Outcome
application dismissed; payment to respondent ordered
Legal Topics
['renewal of Proceedings' 'rectification of Building Work' 'tribunal Procedure']
['consumer Law' 'construction Law'] ['renewal of Proceedings' 'rectification of Building Work' 'tribunal Procedure']

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

Renewal Application / Decision on Renewal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants had a right to renew the proceedings after abolition of the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal and the coming into force of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013' 'Whether the respondent complied with the original rectification and certification orders' 'Whether it was reasonable for the applicants to refuse further access for rectification and claim a money order instead']

Ratio Decidendi

The right to renew the proceedings exists under the transitional provisions, but the applicants' actions in preventing reasonable access and joint inspections unreasonably hindered the respondent's ability to comply fully. The evidence showed substantial compliance by the respondent, and the applicants were not entitled to a money order or to withhold payment.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; payment to respondent ordered

Orders

  • ['The renewal application is dismissed.' 'The applicants are to pay the respondent the amount of $26,450.36 forthwith']