Veroc Pty Ltd v Evaross Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 189

Veroc Pty Ltd v Evaross Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 189

The Consent Orders did not finally exhaust the Tribunal's function because they expressly contemplated further steps, including an application for a money order if the Building Works were not completed and certified. The Tribunal had jurisdiction and power to construe the Consent Orders, determine whether the submitted quotations complied with order 7, and make orders giving effect to the parties' written settlement. Order 7 did not require six compliant quotations as a condition precedent; otherwise Veroc could frustrate the money order by failing to provide compliant quotations. The Tribunal gave adequate reasons, had evidence in the form of the quotations, and was entitled to find that...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal to the NCAT Appeal Panel From Decisions of the Consumer & Commercial Division in Home Building Proceedings / Appeal From Decisions Dated 10 November 2015 and 9 February 2016; Extension of Time Granted for the 10 November 2015 Decision; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['construction of Consent Orders' 'functus Officio' 'money Order' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'renewal of Proceedings' 'ncat Internal Appeal']
['home Building' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['construction of Consent Orders' 'functus Officio' 'money Order' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'renewal of Proceedings' 'ncat Internal Appeal']

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

Internal Appeal to the NCAT Appeal Panel From Decisions of the Consumer & Commercial Division in Home Building Proceedings / Appeal From Decisions Dated 10 November 2015 and 9 February 2016; Extension of Time Granted for the 10 November 2015 Decision; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal was functus officio after making the Consent Orders on 21 May 2015 and lacked jurisdiction or power to construe and enforce them.' 'Whether the Tribunal correctly construed the Consent Orders, including order 7 concerning quotations and the money order.' 'Whether the Tribunal could average only the quotations found to comply with order 7 rather than requiring six complying quotations.' "Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that Veroc's quotations did not comply with order 7 and Evaross' quotations did comply." 'Whether the Tribunal gave adequate reasons for its conclusions about the quotations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Consent Orders did not finally exhaust the Tribunal's function because they expressly contemplated further steps, including an application for a money order if the Building Works were not completed and certified. The Tribunal had jurisdiction and power to construe the Consent Orders, determine whether the submitted quotations complied with order 7, and make orders giving effect to the parties' written settlement. Order 7 did not require six compliant quotations as a condition precedent; otherwise Veroc could frustrate the money order by failing to provide compliant quotations. The Tribunal gave adequate reasons, had evidence in the form of the quotations, and was entitled to find that...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Order 6 of the Tribunal in proceedings HB 13/62098 and HB 14/36216 ("the Tribunal Proceedings") is vacated.' 'Order 1(a) of the Appeal Panel dated 19 April 2016 be varied so that the final instalment payment of $21,884.00 shall be paid forthwith to the respondent out of the money held,...