Nath v MGM Construction and Development Pty Limited [2026] NSWCATCD 26;

(a) On or around 23 September 2021 the applicants and the respondent entered into a contract for the respondent to complete building works at the Premises (construction of a granny flat) in exchange for payment of $124,300.00.

(b) On or around 17 November 2021 the respondent commenced the works.

(c) The works were to have reached practical completion by 16 January 2022 but the respondent, in breach of the contract, did not complete practical completion by that date.

(d) On or around 14 June 2023 the applicants and the respondent entered into a deed which varied the terms of the contract; the deed including terms to the effect that the applicants were to make payment of $15,718.64 to the respondent on 14 July 2023; that on that date the original contract was rescinded and a new contract created between the parties; further, that the respondent would cause to be lodged an amended Home Building Compensation Fund Certificate with iCare and provide a copy of the amended Home Building Compensation Fund Certificate to the applicants within 48 hours of receipt.

(e) A further provision of the deed was that the respondent was to recommence works on 14 July 2023; additionally that practical completion was to be reached by 8 September 2023.

(f) A further term of the deed was that on the respondent issuing an occupation certificate to the applicants the applicants would release the respondent from any and all claims which they have against the respondent in respect of the works.

(g) Despite the wording of the deed the original contract was not rescinded. Rather, it was terminated by agreement between the parties.

(h) The applicants made payment of $15,718.64 to the respondent on 14 June 2023. On that date they entered into a novated contract with the respondent.

(i) The terms of the deed "supplemented and comprised" the terms of the novated contract.

(j) In breach of the deed the respondent did not recommence the works on 14 July 2023, did not achieve practical completion by 8 September 2023 and has not lodged an amended Home Building Compensation Fund Certificate with iCare.

(k) As a result of the terms of the deed comprising the terms of the novated contract, by virtue of the respondent's breaches it also breached the novated contract.

(l) The respondent remains in breach of the deed. Further, or in the alternative, in breach of the novated contract. By virtue of such breaches the respondent repudiated the deed; alternatively the novated contract.

(m) On or around 4 November 2023; pursuant to a right of election, the applicants elected to terminate the deed as a result of the respondent's breaches. They also elected to terminate the novated contract for the same reason.

(n) As the respondent has not provided the applicants with an occupation certificate, the applicants have not released it from claims which they have against it in respect of the works, or in respect of the contract.

(o) The applicants intended to rent the granny flat once constructed for a rental fee of $600.00 per week. As the construction of the granny flat is incomplete the applicants have suffered loss and damage as a result of the respondent's breach in the form of lost rental income.

(p) The respondent is liable for breach of the statutory warranty that the work would be done with due care and skill. That warranty has been breached by the works not being performed with such due care and skill. As a consequence the applicants seek the cost of carrying out rectification.

(q) The applicants also seek interest and costs.

1. The applicant was heard by the Tribunal on 26 June 2025 and 30 September 2025.

1. The applicants rely upon affidavits that each have affirmed on 21 January 2025, as well as an expert report of Mr Brook dated 29 January 2025 and a 5 May 2025 Joint Scott Schedule.
2. The respondent relies on an affidavit of a Michael Mikhail sworn 14 March 2025, an expert report of Mr Islam dated 12 March 2025 and, additionally, the Joint Scott Schedule.
3. The parties ought not assume that if certain evidence, or a particular submission, has not been specifically referred to in these Reasons that that evidence, or the submission, has not been considered.

1. Section 48K of the Home Building Act, 1989 (NSW) (HB Act) gives the Tribunal justification to hear and determine a building claim brought before it in accordance with Part 3A of the Act.
2. Building claim is defined in s48A to mean (relevantly for present purposes) a claim for the payment of a specified sum of money or the supply of specified services that arises from a supply of building goods or services, or that arises under a contract that is collateral to the supply of goods or services. Building goods or services is defined in the same section to mean goods or services supplied for, or in connection with, the carrying out of residential building work, or specialist work, being goods or services:

(a) supplied by the person who contracts to do, or otherwise does, that work, or

(b) supplied in any circumstances prescribed by the regulations by the person who contracts to do the work.

1. Subsection (2) provides that a building claim includes a claim for compensation for loss arising from breach of a warranty implied under Part 2C. Part 2C includes the s18B warranty that - amongst other things (and relevantly for present purposes) - work will be done with due care and skill.
2. I am satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Application.

1. From the content of the Application, the submissions of the parties, the evidence presented and discussions with the legal representatives at the Hearing the issues for determination are:

(1) What is the relevant contract between the parties pursuant to which the applicants are seeking monies/compensation or other orders?

(2) Did the respondent breach that contract?

(3) If the Tribunal finds breach what - if any - compensation ought be awarded for the cost of completing the works. Alternatively, should a work order be made per s48O(1)(c) of the HB Act?

(4) If the Tribunal finds breach can the applicants claim as compensation loss of rent?

(5) If an order is made for the payment of a sum of money, should there be an award of interest?

(6) What - if any - order ought be made for costs?

1. In his 21 January 2025 affidavit the second applicant deposes to he and the first applicant entering into a contract with a Michael Mikhail to construct a granny flat at the premises for $124,300.00 inclusive of GST. He annexes the contract to his affidavit. It commences at page 50 of volume 1 of the court book ("CB"). The contract annexed is not one, by its terms, between the first and second applicants as owners and Mr Mikhail as contractor; rather, it is a contract between the second applicant and Mr Mikhail. It does not, by its terms, mention the first applicant or the respondent.
2. The second applicant says at [7] that Mr Mikhail is a director of the respondent and, at [8], says that he "understood" that the works referred to in that contract ". . . . . would be completed by MGM". He says at [9] that MGM commenced construction works at the property on or around 17 November 2021.
3. At [13] the second applicant says that on 14 July 2023 he and the first applicant, as well as Mr Mikhail and the respondent, entered into a Deed of Settlement (hereafter referred as "Deed"); that Deed commencing at CB page 63.
4. Paragraph C under "Background" on page 1 of the Deed refers to an undated contract between Mr Mikhail and the first applicant being a contract signed by Mr Mikhail and sent to the applicants on 23 September 2021. The Deed defines the respondent as the Builder.
5. Paragraph F under "Background" asserts a dispute arising between the parties to the Deed (namely the applicants, the respondent and Mr Mikhail) in which the applicants allege loss and damage against the respondent and Mr Mikhail in relation to "the part of the works carried out", and the respondent alleging monies owed to it in relation to the works carried out. The Deed defines this as "the Dispute".
6. Paragraph I provides that the parties have agreed to fully and finally settle "the Dispute" - ". . . . . and all matters arising out of and in connection with the same . . . ." on the terms set out in the Deed.
7. Clause 3 provides that on the Effective Date (defined in the Deed to mean the date on which the Deed is executed by all the parties) Trust Monies (being defined in the Deed to mean $15,718.64 held by the solicitors or the applicants) are to be paid to the solicitors acting for the respondent and Mr Mikhail. Clause 3 further provides that on and from the Effective Date the first applicant and Mr Mikhail agree that the contract (defined in the Deed as being the 23 September 2021 contract between the first applicant and Mr Mikhail) is rescinded and that, at the same time, a new contract on the same terms as the September 2021 contract is created between MGM and the applicants. Clause 3 describes the new contract as the Novated Contract. Clause 3(b)(iii) provides that the respondent is bound by all the terms of the Novated Contract instead of Mr Mikhail, and that the applicants are bound by the terms of the Novated Contract.
8. Clause 3(b)(vii) provides that Mr Mikhail is released and discharged from all obligations and liabilities, and from all Claims [defined earlier in the Deed] arising in respect of the contract [ie arising in respect of the September 2021 contract].
9. Clause 3(b)(x) provides that the respondent will cause to be lodged an amended HBCF Certificate with iCare naming the applicants as the home owners.
10. Clause 3(c) provides that on receipt of the Trust Monies by the solicitors for the respondent and Mr Mikhail the respondent is to recommence the works in accordance with the Construction Program and the Novated Contract.
11. By clause 3(d) the parties to the Deed acknowledge and agree that the date for practical completion under the Novated Contract shall be eight (8) weeks from the recommencement date; that is, the date of payment of the Trust Monies.
12. The Deed bears the signatures of both applicants at page 72 of the court book. Both signatures were, the Deed records, applied in the presence of the applicants solicitor.
13. The first applicant in her affidavit commencing at page 219 of the CB also refers to both applicants entering into a contract with Mr Mikhail on 23 September 2021 for the construction of a granny flat at the premises, to Mr Mikhail commencing works in respect of the granny flat in November 2021, to works not being completed by Mr Mikhail by 16 January 2022; further, to ". . . . . the works which have been undertaken by [Mr Mikhail] having led to visible damage to the main dwelling of the premises, the surrounding area in the front and back yard, the swimming pool and the granny flat". She further deposes at [14] to the applicants entering into a Deed of Settlement with Mr Mikhail and the respondent on 14 July 2023. She annexes a copy of the same Deed that is annexed to the second applicant's affidavit.
14. At [18] the first applicant says that pursuant to the Deed a new contract, described as the Novated Contract, was created between the applicants and MGM. She says that the Novated Contract varied the terms of the September 2021 contract and that, on 14 July 2023, in accordance with the Deed, the applicants caused payment of $15,718.64 to be made to the Trust Account of the respondent's solicitor.
15. She says that pursuant to the terms of the Novated Contract the recommencement date for the works was 14 July 2023, the revised practical completion date was 8 September 2023, and that the respondent did not recommence the works on 14 July nor complete by 8 September.
16. Both applicants gave evidence at the Tribunal Hearing.
17. The second applicant when giving oral evidence at the Hearing conceded that he signed the July 2023 Deed and that, in these proceedings, he only brings action against the named respondent, not also against Mr Mikhail, even though he treated the respondent and Mr Mikhail as the "same people"; further, that it was Mr Mikhail who carried out the works, and brought trades people to the site, prior to the Deed being entered into.
18. There is a further concession of having obtained legal advice on the Deed prior to it being executed, and being content to enter into it.
19. The first applicant gave evidence at the Hearing of having entered into, initially, into a contract with Mr Mikhail. She says that she had not, at that point, heard of the respondent. Following the initial contract being entered into she saw Mr Mikhail carrying out building works.
20. The first applicant concedes that when the Deed was drawn up the contracting entity had changed from Mr Mikhail to the respondent. She further concedes that she signed the Deed and that, pursuant to its provisions, she understood that on execution the applicants were to become parties to a contract with the respondent.
21. Mr Mikhail in his affidavit sworn 14 March 2025 says that he is a Director of the respondent and that he holds building licence 256706C. He is the nominated supervisor for the respondent and is a registered building practitioner. Mr Mikhail refers at [5] to being sued personally in NCAT proceedings in late 2022 following a dispute that he had with the applicants concerning the works that he had agreed to perform to a granny flat at the Premises. He says that there was a contract for the performance of those works between himself and the first applicant dated September 2021. He describes it as the Original Contract. He says that the works pursuant to the Original Contract were about 85% performed when the dispute with the applicants occurred. At the time he was claiming $15,718.64 in variations and that the applicants were then claiming that there was damage caused at the property as well as works being defective.
22. Mr Mikhail says that he suspended the works because the applicant would not pay the variations. That resulted in the applicants commencing their November 2022 NCAT proceedings. At [9] he refers to negotiations through the parties lawyers in July 2022 and agreement being reached to settle the 2022 proceedings. The agreement to settle was put in writing in the form of a Deed of Settlement. He annexes a signed counterpart of the Deed to his affidavit.
23. At [10] he says that the key terms of the Deed, as he understood them, were that the Original Contract between himself and the first applicant would be replaced with a new contract between the respondent and both applicants; that under the new contract the respondent would finish the granny flat works on the same terms as the Original Contract (pursuant to a construction programme set out in the Deed), that he would be released personally from obligations, liabilities and claims under the Original Contract and that once the Deed was signed, and the applicants paid the amount of the variations, the November 2022 NCAT proceedings would be withdrawn and works would recommence.
24. He says that all parties signed the Deed on 14 July 2023 and that at that time the applicants paid the variation amount of $15,718.64.
25. When giving oral evidence at the Tribunal Hearing Mr Mikhail said that he prepared the Original Contract and that the works pursuant to its conditions were performed by him as the holder of a builder's licence. He says that practical completion was not achieved under the Original Contract because the applicants did not pay the variation amounts. He denied that works were defective and says that the Original Contract was ultimately terminated.
26. He says that before the commencement of the November 2022 NCAT proceedings he was proposing to make his own claim for payment of the variation sums but that that variation claim had not been pursued by the time the Deed was entered into in July 2023.
27. Mr Mikhail gave evidence of the terms of the Deed providing for works to recommence once the variation amount was paid and a certificate of insurance obtained. He concedes that $14,000.00 was paid on 14 July 2023.
28. Having considered the evidence and the parties submissions the proper, and only, contract on which the applicants can, in these proceedings, seek relief for the loss/damages asserted is the Deed that they entered into with the respondent in July 2023.
29. The reason why the question of the correct contract is an issue requiring determination is that the applicants refer to and rely upon non completion of the works prior to July 2023, and claim loss and damage in respect of works performed up to that point.
30. Prior to the Deed being entered into on 14 July 2023 the respondent had no obligations, contractually or otherwise, in respect of the works that had been performed up to that point in time; the works to that stage having been performed by Mr Mikhail pursuant to the contract that he entered into with the first applicant in September 2021. The respondent was not a party to that contract and therefore had no obligations in respect of such works.
31. The July 2023 Deed creates a new suite of obligations between the parties to it. The Deed does not, by its terms, make any of its parties liable under the earlier September 2021 contract. Nor does it make any party liable for any breach by any of the contracting parties to the September 2021 contract, namely Mr Mikhail and the first applicant.
32. These results apply for a number of reasons.
33. Firstly, paragraph "I" under "Background" provides that the parties to the Deed "fully and finally settle" the "Dispute", where the Dispute is described in "F" to include alleged loss and damage against (inter alia) Mr Mikhail in relation to part of the works carried out.
34. Secondly, the Deed expressly provides that the September 2021 contract between Mr Mikhail and the first applicant is rescinded on the Effective Date, where that date is defined in the Deed to mean the date on which it is executed by all parties. The evidence discloses that it was executed by all the parties on 14 July 2023. Accordingly, by the wording of the Deed itself, on that date the September 2021 contract is rescinded and any claim of the applicants for loss or damage against Mr Mikhail in relation to works carried out to that point is (to use the wording of the Deed) fully and finally settled.
35. Thirdly, per clause 3(b) of the Deed on and from 14 July 2023 a new contract is created between the respondent and the applicants (described in the Deed as the "Novated Contract"); further, that as and from 14 July 2023 - but not prior to that date - the respondent is bound by the terms of the Novated Contract. Both applicants also agree per clause 3(b) to be bound by the terms of the Novated Contract as and from 14 July 2023. By clause 3(b)(vii) as and from 14 July 2023 Mr Mikhail is released and discharged from all obligations, liabilities and claims arising in respect of the September 2021 contract.
36. I reject the applicants contention at [5] of their Points of Claim that in September 2021 they and "the defendant" (which I take to be a reference to the respondent) entered into a contract for the completion of building works. I further reject their plea in [7] that on or around November 2021 the respondent commenced the works, and the further contention in [9] that the respondent breached the September 2021 contract. The respondent was not a party to that contract.
37. I further reject the applicants plea at [13] that despite the Deed containing terms to the effect that the September 2021 contract was rescinded, the contract was not rescinded.
38. The parties to the September 2021 contract, namely the first applicant and Mr Mikhail, were also parties to the July 2023 Deed. Both expressly agreed at clause 3(b)(i) of the Deed that the September 2021 contract, on and from the Effective Date - namely 14 July 2023 - was rescinded.
39. By executing the Deed both the first applicant and Mr Mikhail demonstrated, I find, an unequivocal intention to rescind their September 2021 contract. The first applicant does not contend in her affidavit that she had any intention when executing the Deed other than to, at the time of execution by all parties, rescind the September 2021 contract.

1. The applicants plead at [19] of their Points of Claim that the respondent breached the Deed by:

(a) Not recommencing the works on 14 July 2023;

(b) Not completing practical completion of the works by 8 September 2023, and

(c) Not lodging an amended Home Building Compensation Fund Certificate with iCare naming the applicants.

1. In its Points of Defence the respondent raises four primary contentions in refuting the allegation of breach of the Deed.
2. Firstly, it says that the applicants are estopped from bringing these proceedings by reason of the consent dismissal of the 2022 NCAT proceedings giving rise to a res judicata.
3. Secondly, it says that it is prohibited from performing the works by s92 of the Home Building Act in that that section requires a contract of insurance that complies with the Act being in force in relation to such work in the name of the respondent, and a certificate of insurance evidencing the contract of insurance to have been provided to the applicants. The respondent says that until those conditions were satisfied it was prohibited by law from commencing the works.
4. Thirdly, it says that its inability to obtain the certificate was caused by something beyond its sole control, per clause 5 of the Novated Contract.
5. Fourthly, it says that it had given written notice to the applicants of its inability to commence the works referred to in the Novated Contract as something caused beyond its sole control thereby entitling it to extend the building period under the Novated Contract until such time as it was able to obtain the insurance certificate.
6. Lastly, it says that the applicants breached the implied term set out in paragraph 6(d) of the Points of Defence namely, that the applicants would conduct themselves towards the respondent reasonably and in good faith, co-operate with it to do things and sign documents as necessary and not prevent the respondent from performing its obligations.
7. In so far as the second applicant's affidavit deals with events after the Deed was entered into in July 2023, and relevant to the issue of breach, he says that up until 21 January 2025 (when the affidavit was affirmed) neither he nor the first applicant had received an Occupation Certificate for the granny flat.
8. The first applicant says at [24] of her affidavit that neither the respondent nor Mr Mikhail recommenced the works on 14 July 2023 nor completed the works by 8 September 2023. She further says at [28] that the respondent has not provided to her or the second applicant a copy of the HBCF Certificate. She annexes copies of email correspondence between the applicants solicitors and the respondent's solicitors in the period 2 August 2023 to 22 August 2023, and between 5 and 19 September of that year.
9. The email exchange between the solicitors includes an email of the applicants solicitors to the respondent's solicitor of 9 August 2023 seeking an update regarding ". . . . . copy of amended HBCF and confirmation of recommencement of construction works". On 21 August the respondent's solicitor advised by email that the respondent required a rates notice displaying the applicants names in order for the insurer to finalise the change on the HBCF policy. The email request that that be sent.
10. A further email of the respondent's solicitor of 7 September advised that the respondent was awaiting the issue of new insurance documents from iCare. On 15 September the solicitor advised that the respondent had requested that the HBCF insurer reissue the certificate in respect of the project in the name of the correct parties (which the email described as the respondent as builder and the applicants as home owners); that the insurer had requested further documentation and demonstration that those parties were the parties to the contract, and that the respondent had provided to the insurer the details of the Deed and the novation of the original contract. The email further said "Our clients instructions are that it wants to recommence and complete the works urgently, however we note that until the adequate insurances are in place our client cannot recommence the works."
11. The applicant's affidavits do not refer to the 2022 NCAT proceedings.
12. Mr Mikhail in his affidavit says that in late July 2024 he called his broker, Coverforce, and asked about amending the HBCF and insurance details. He was informed by that person to lodge a request on the HBCF builder self service portal on the iCare website. He also says at [18] that between 3 and 8 August he called iCare and again sought the assistance of his broker between 9 and 14 August. He says he gave that person the applicants names as home owners and the respondent's details as builder. The broker requested on 21 August a council rates notice with the applicants names on it. An email attaching copies of the council rates notices were then sent by the applicants on 22 August 2023. He sent to his broker a copy of the Deed on 8 September 2023. He says at [28] that he understood from his broker that it needed to see a contract for the new works signed by the respondent and the applicants. He says at [29] that he informed the broker that ". . . . . the new contract was the same as the old contract except it was now between Naresh Araxi and MGM". He informed the broker that it was not signed because it was part of the Deed. He was told that the insurer ". . . . . would only accept a contract in the form of a HIA, MPA or Fair Trading Home Building contract or similar . . . . ." and that he should obtain from the home owners a signed new contract whereupon an HBCF certificate could issue.
13. Mr Mikhail annexes email communications between the respondent's solicitor and the applicants solicitor on this issue. The respondent's solicitor wrote to the applicants solicitor on 19 December 2023. That email is at CB page 550. In the email the solicitor advised that the HBCF insurer had requested a copy of the Novated Contract signed by the parties before it would issue the updated HBCF certificate. The email then says that, in the interests of moving forward with the works, the parties ought agree to a small variation to the Deed such that they sign a form of the Novated Contract in order to allow the respondent to attend to the obtaining of the certificate. The email attached a Deed of Variation and asked that the applicants sign it. By email of 25 October 2023 the applicants solicitors responded by saying that the applicants "may consider" executing the proposed Variation Deed but on certain terms which were then set out. Those terms included a variation to the completion date and, in the event that works were not completed by that completion date, for the respondent to pay $400 per day as liquidated damages. Additionally, the applicants sought that the respondent pay the applicant's legal costs in relation to the deed variation.
14. At the Tribunal Hearing the first applicant, when being cross examined, agreed that in October 2023 the respondent was seeking to amend the Deed and that the applicants were not agreeing to do so. She - relevantly - conceded that the proposal at that point would have seen the applicants sign a contract for the works with the respondent; further, that it would have been reasonable to sign such a document. She further conceded that at this point in time the applicants were obtaining legal advice. She said that she did not agree to sign the Deed of Variation because she was "going through a lot" and that her husband at that stage had health issues. She agreed that she had access to a lawyer at that time and that her instructions to the lawyer were to commence proceedings.
15. Having considered all of the adduced evidence I find that the respondent has not breached the 14 July 2023 Deed. Whilst clause 3(b)(x) of the Deed obliged the respondent to ". . . . . cause to be lodged" an amended HBCF certificate with iCare on and from the Effective Date (which I have found to be 14 July 2023) and would cause a copy of the amended certificate to be provided to the applicants within 48 hours of receipt, Schedule 3 of the Novated Contract prohibited "the contractor" from carrying out any works until a Home Building Compensation Fund certificate was in force and "the owner" was provided with a copy of the certificate. Clause 5 further provided that "the contractor" - namely the respondent, pursuant to provisions of the Deed - was ". . . . . not responsible for any delay being caused by something beyond [it's] sole control . . . . .".
16. The provision of a building contract of a type that the insurer would accept, and executed by each of the parties was, I find, "something beyond [the respondent's] sole control". It was not able to provide a copy of such an executed contract because the applicants declined, following communications between the solicitors, to sign such a contract.
17. I agree with the respondent's submission that, in these circumstances, it was not required to carry out the works where it was not lawfully able to, for reasons outside its control, and where the applicants had not taken the steps required - namely executing the proposed variation deed - in order for the certificate to issue and for the respondent to start the work.
18. In addition, Clause (g) of the July 2023 Deed was an agreement by each party to ". . . . . properly execute and deliver all documents and take all other action necessary or desirable to effect, perfect or complete the transaction contemplated by this Deed".
19. The refusal by the applicants to execute the documents proffered by the respondent's solicitor was a breach by the applicants of Clause (g). The proffered agreement was a ". . . . . document . . . . . necessary or desirable to effect, perfect or complete the transactions contemplated by [the] Deed".
20. I accept the evidence of Mr Mikhail as to efforts he took to obtain an insurance certificate and start the works as referred to in his affidavit; that he made reasonable enquiries with his broker and that his solicitors engaged in appropriate communications with the applicants solicitors in order to obtain sufficient material and documentation to obtain insurance. Mr Mikhail was told by his broker in September 2023 that the broker needed a signed standard form contract with both the applicants names. The respondent had sought to provide the Deed to the broker, explaining what it was and what the transaction entailed. That, however, was not accepted by the insurer.
21. The position taken by the insurer meant that the respondent could not obtain insurance without the proffered agreement being executed by the parties and provided to the insurer.
22. Given the existence of Clause 11(g) I reject the respondent's contention of an implied duty to co-operate. The implied term of the type asserted was not necessary to give efficacy to the Deed.
23. I also reject the respondent's plea of res judicata arising from the November 2022 NCAT proceedings; this because those proceedings were, by the evidence such as it is, between the applicants and Mr Mikhail. Further, there was no determination of that Application by the Tribunal by the making of factual findings. Mr Mikhail deposes at [11] to the November 2022 NCAT proceedings being withdrawn in July 2023.

1. Given the Tribunal's findings on issues (1) and (2) it is not necessary for Issues (3) - (5) to be determined; those issues being predicated on a finding of breach by the respondent.

1. Issue (6) is what - if any - order ought be made for costs.
2. Any party wishing to seek an order for costs is to inform the Tribunal registry and the other party in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of publication of these Reasons, and is to include in such communications written submissions (of no more than five pages in length).
3. Any party opposing an application for costs is to provide to the Tribunal, and to the other party, written submissions (of no more than five pages in length); such submissions to be lodged within seven (7) days of receipt of the applying party's submissions.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.