Australia, July 18 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 17:

1. This is an appeal against orders made in the decision of the Tribunal in Lawrence v Ciantar and Sammut 2023/00369774 delivered on 26 April 2024 by Senior Member Ellis SC (the Decision).

Background

2. The appellant made an application on 25 October 2023 in the Consumer & Commercial Division. The appellant claimed that on 12 November 2014 he entered into a commercial construction contract for $435 000. In the disputed details, he stated:

Developer owners owner (sic) builders have not paid me all (sic) completed the contract they've taken over my identity certificates and documents end (sic) completed the driveway and retention tank then used my documents I was the only registered builder with council to register the subdivision not make payment in the taking of accounts.

They had no consent to use my identity is (sic) the registration of the subdivision I still hold the 73 certificate original which is required to register a subdivision the builder developer owners how do (sic) use copies and through the back door the surveyor filed the document with land registry titles.

They contracted to sell the lot 3 block off the Plan I Hold executed transfer for the lot on the registration of the subdivision later sold lot 3 it's settled that lot in May/June 2021 did not account for those monies from the trust account being held in the name of the lawyer.

3. Under the subheading Orders Sought, the appellant indicated that the amount of compensation sought was $435 000 and it was not in breach of statutory warranty.

4. The background to this claim, as described by the appellant was that in 2014 the respondents requested him to undertake building and development services with respect to a property in Forestville. In 2015 the parties entered into a deed of loan agreement whereby the appellant was to loan $435 000 to the respondents to assist with the subdivision. The appellant claimed that he was entitled to one of the three lots sold by the respondents.

5. There have been lengthy proceedings between the parties in relation to an agreement they reached concerning the development of a subdivision, which agreement was found by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to have been subject to the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW): see Lawrence v Ciantar; Ciantar v Lawrence [2019] NSWSC 464; Lawrence v Ciantar [2020] NSWCA 89. Mr Lawrence was denied leave to appeal to the High Court: Lawrence v Ciantar [2021] HCASL 35. There have also been bankruptcy proceedings relating to Mr Lawerence and arising from those proceedings: Lawrence v Sammut [2021] FCCA 1929

6. On 8 December 2024, Senior Member Goldstein flagged an issue of jurisdiction and made directions for submissions to be filed by the appellant and the respondents. The issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction as the date of contract specified by the appellant was dated November 2014 and was, at the time of the application in October 2023, outside of the three year limitation period set out in s 48K of the Home Building Act.

7. The parties did file submissions and documents and the hearing as to jurisdiction occurred on 26 April 2024 before Senior Member Ellis SC.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19775d6358068d8a30fc1bb4)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.