The Owners – Strata Plan No. 99779 v Rockdale One Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATCD 165

The Owners – Strata Plan No. 99779 v Rockdale One Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATCD 165

The Tribunal found that the applicant had established the existence of defects for certain items (including CP. 503, CP. 506, CP. 507, CP. 508, CP. 509, CP. 511, CP. 80, CP. 302 and similar instances in all lots) that had not been justified with performance solutions or exemptions. The Tribunal balanced expert evidence, lack of direct product identification, and statutory powers to order rectification and a mechanism for agreeing appropriate work orders.

Parties
Applicant: The Owners – Strata Plan 99779; First Respondent: Rockdale One Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Piety THP Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Building and Construction Dispute / Post Hearing, Consequential Orders
Outcome
Application allowed in part; consequential orders made
Legal Topics
Defective Work, Work Orders, Fire Safety Compliance, Access Compliance, Hydraulic Defects
Building and Construction Law Defective Work Work Orders Fire Safety Compliance Access Compliance Hydraulic Defects

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Owners – Strata Plan 99779

Applicant

Rockdale One Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Piety THP Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building and Construction Dispute / Post Hearing, Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain works constitute defects under the Home Building Act 1989 and BCA
  2. 2 Appropriate rectification of fire, access, and hydraulic defects
  3. 3 Sufficiency of evidence regarding alleged defects and their extent

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant had established the existence of defects for certain items (including CP. 503, CP. 506, CP. 507, CP. 508, CP. 509, CP. 511, CP. 80, CP. 302 and similar instances in all lots) that had not been justified with performance solutions or exemptions. The Tribunal balanced expert evidence, lack of direct product identification, and statutory powers to order rectification and a mechanism for agreeing appropriate work orders.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; consequential orders made

Orders

  • Parties are to file a joint work order reflecting the Tribunal's reasons within 14 days; if not agreed, each party to file separate work order and short submissions within 21 days.
  • Provision for costs applications: costs applicant to file within 14 days, respondent to respond within 14 days of receipt; Tribunal may determine costs on papers unless a hearing is requested.