The Owners - Strata Plan 96987 v Decode Sydney Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATCD 161;

The Owners - Strata Plan 93227 v In Style Developments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 154

Akratos v Papadopoulos [2016] NSWCATAP 139

Sunaust Properties Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan 64807 [2022] NSWSC 1643

BKB Constructions Pty Ltd v Sawan [2022] NSWCATAP 103

Promina Design & Construction Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan No 97449 [2023] NSWCATAP 252

The Owners - Strata Plan 92334 v Piety Capital Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 22

Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; [1990] 170 CLR 534

Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11

Canterbury Property NSW Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)

1. This proceeding is brought in the Tribunal by the applicant, The Owners - Strata Plan 96987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Owners Corporation" or the "OC") against the first respondent, Decode Sydney Pty Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the "Builder") and the second respondent, Canterbury Property Pty Ltd (the "Developer"). The proceeding relates to defective residential building work ("Defects") in the common property of a residential apartment building known as "Aura" ("Building") in the Sydney suburb of Canterbury, of which the Owners Corporation is the registered proprietor.
2. The OC alleges that the Defects in the Building arise from breaches of the Statutory Warranties in the Home Building Act 1989 NSW ("HB Act") Part 2C s 18B(1), and from breaches of the duty of care provided for in the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 NSW ("DBP Act") Part 4, s 37.
3. While the OC's principal claim as put in its points of claim dated 24 April 2025, is in respect of a work order against the Builder to be made pursuant to s 48O(1)(c)(i) of the HB Act, there is a claim against the respondents including the Developer, which is put in the alternative, for monetary compensation by way of the costs of remediation/rectification works for the Defects.
4. The OC relies on an expert witness report bearing date 6 June 2025 of Quantity Surveyor, David Madden ("Mr Madden") from MBMpl Pty Ltd, to support its submission that it has a reasonably arguable claim in an amount of more than $500,000, i.e., that its claim in the proceeding now exceeds the Tribunal's jurisdictional limit for claims under the HB Act.
5. In fact, Mr Madden opines at [8.1] on page 11 of his report that the cost to rectify the defective works is $668,273.15. This figure is the grand total after adding Preliminaries, Builder's Margin, Design and Professional Fees, Contingency, HBCF, and GST, to these two components of trade cost:

(i) Building rectification as per the 2022 and 2023 reports of the OC's expert, Mr George Dahrie of Noviion Engineering - see annexure C of Mr Madden's report dated 6 June 2025, and

(ii) Mould rectification as per the mould report dated 4 June 2025 of Ms Penny Tralau from Mould Rescue- see annexure D of Mr Madden's report dated 6 June 2025.

1. Relying upon Mr Madden's report of 6 June 2025, the OC by its Application for miscellaneous matters lodged on 24 July 2025, now seeks an order to transfer the proceeding to the District Court of New South Wales (hereinafter referred to as the "Transfer Application"). An earlier application of the OC to transfer the proceeding to the District Court, which had relied upon a Scott Schedule filed on 14 February 2025 ("Scott Schedule"), was dismissed by the Tribunal on 8 April 2025, because the Tribunal found the author of the Scott Schedule was not identified and because there was no expert evidence of quantum to establish the applicant's claim would likely exceed the Tribunal's jurisdictional limit of $500,000.
2. The Builder opposes the OC's Transfer Application lodged on 24 July 2025.
3. On 23 July 2025 (i.e., the day prior to lodgement by the OC of the Transfer Application), the Builder lodged its own Application for miscellaneous matters, which seeks a work order pursuant to s 48O(1)(c)(i), read with s 48MA of the HB Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Work Order Application").
4. The orders sought by the Builder in the Work Order Application are for it to rectify various of the items referred to in the Scott Schedule filed on 14 February 2025, specifically, items 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 34 and 40 of the Scott Schedule. The Grounds for the Work Order Application state, relevantly:

"6. If the Orders the subject of this Application are granted, the value of the amount claimed will be well below $500,000 and within the Tribunal's jurisdiction pursuant to s 48 of the HBA.

7. The above is apparent from a review of the MBM QS Expert Report dated 06 June 2025 ...

The reference to "s 48" in paragraph 6 must be a typographical error. The relevant section as regards the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear and determine building claims (i.e., where the amount claimed does not exceed $500,000), is in fact, s 48K(1) of the HB Act."

1. The Transfer Application and the Work Order Application were foreshadowed by the parties' legal representatives at a directions' hearing of the proceeding on 4 July 2025, when the Tribunal made orders and directions for the lodgement with the Tribunal of Applications for miscellaneous matters and for the parties to file and serve written submissions in support of, and in response to, the Transfer Application, and the Work Order Application, respectively. The Tribunal thereafter received written submissions dated 18 August 2025 from the parties to support their respective Applications and submissions in reply dated 1 September 2025 (from the Builder) and 7 September 2025 (from the OC), before I heard oral argument for both Applications on 11 September 2025.
2. For the hearing on 11 September 2025, I reserved my decision in both Applications. The Builder's counsel sought an opportunity to provide further written submissions following the hearing, to address a specific issue which had emerged during the hearing. In opposing the Builder's Application, the OC had submitted that it would be prejudiced by a work order because in the event of any non-compliance with a work order, and the consequent exercise of the Tribunal's authority in cl 8 of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW ("NCAT Act") to renew the proceeding ("Renewal"), the OC would be limited to the Tribunal's monetary jurisdiction in s 48K(1) of the HB Act, and thereby lose its ability to sue for an amount exceeding $500,000, i.e., the excess which is the subject of the OC's Transfer Application.
3. In response, the Builder had argued during the hearing that no such prejudice arises because in any Renewal of the proceeding, the Tribunal could exercise the authority in cl 6(1) of Sch 4 of the NCAT Act, to transfer the proceeding to a court of competent jurisdiction. When I asked how that argument fits within the nature and extent of the Tribunal's authority under cl 8 Sch 4 of the NCAT Act in a Renewal of the proceeding, the Builder's counsel then sought and obtained a direction for a further written submission addressing that issue only.
4. On 16 September 2025, the Tribunal received the Builder's further written submission on that issue, and subsequently, on 23 September 2025, the Tribunal received the OC's written submission in reply on that issue.

In determining a building claim, the Tribunal is empowered to make one or more of the following orders as it considers appropriate -

(a) an order that one party to the proceedings pay money to another party or to a person specified in the order, whether by way of debt, damages or restitution, or refund any money paid by a specified person,

(b) ...

(c) an order that a party to the proceedings -

(i) do any specified work or perform any specified service or any obligation arising under this Act or the terms of any agreement, or

(ii) ...

1. The subsection upon which the Builder relies for its Application lodged on 23 July 2025, s 48O(1)(c)(i), must be read with s 48MA, which provides:

A court or tribunal determining a building claim involving an allegation of defective residential building work or specialist work by a party to the proceedings (the "responsible party") is to have regard to the principle that rectification of the defective work by the responsible party is the preferred outcome.

1. The language of s 48MA makes clear that a work order is the "preferred outcome", but not a "mandatory outcome": Galdona v Peacock [2017] NSWCATAP 64 at [65]. As the Appeal Panel put it in Leung v Alexakis [2018] NSWCATAP 11 at [140]:

"Being expressed as a 'preferred outcome, it operates in the manner of a presumption. That is, unless the facts of the particular case make it inappropriate to order rectification of the defective work by the responsible party, an order should be made in terms that give effect to the principle."

1. Therefore, the Tribunal retains discretion as to whether (or not) in all the circumstances of a particular case, it is appropriate to make a work order.
2. The Builder's Application refers to specified items of the Scott Schedule only (as indicated above). The Builder does not seek a work order in respect of items 1 - 11, 13, 16, 21, 22, 24, 28, 30 - 33, 35 - 39, and 41 - 51 of the Scott Schedule. Those items are disputed by the Builder, who wishes to be heard on whether those items are, in fact, defects, and if there are defects found by the Tribunal, presumably then for the Builder to contest what is the scope of works to rectify them, and what is the reasonable cost of rectification. Using the figures in the report of Mr Madden dated 6 June 2025, the trade costs of the said disputed items, amount to $50,237.94, such that when Preliminaries, Builder's Margin, Design and Professional Fees, Contingency, HBCF, and GST are added to the $50,237.94, the final cost for the defects in dispute is $87,844.84. On the other hand, the total cost of the Defects which the Builder is seeking to rectify under a work order of the Tribunal, using the figures in Mr Madden's report, is $580,428.31.
3. The Tribunal encourages parties in home building disputes to narrow the issues in contention between them, and if practicable, to resolve all their disputes. In disputes concerning defective residential building work, this may involve a compromise between the parties such that items of defective work become the subject of a work order within a precise scope of works agreed to by the parties and if appropriate, agreed to by their experts. Undoubtedly, such course is consistent with the Tribunal's guiding principle, which is the just, quick, and cheap resolution of the real issues in a proceeding: NCAT Act, s 36(1), Further, such course is consistent with the obligation of the parties and their representatives, to cooperate with the Tribunal to give effect to the guiding principle: NCAT Act, s 36(3). While I acknowledge the Builder's Work Order Application as an attempt to do these things in the conduct of this proceeding, for the following reasons I decline to make any orders in respect of the said Application.
4. Pertinently, I do not find that the OC's opposition to the Builder's Work Order Application is an instance of not fulfilling its duty to cooperate with the Tribunal (NCAT Act, s 36(3)). For reasons given later in respect of the Transfer Application, I am satisfied that the OC is well within its rights in taking the position it has following receipt of the report of Mr Madden, which is that the proceeding should be transferred to the District Court.
5. Moreover, any orders made in the Builder's Application despite the objection of the OC, would be an interlocutory decision of the Tribunal (see the definitions in the NCAT Act, s 4), because the orders would not bring finality in the proceeding. Although the value of the Defects sought to be rectified by the Builder is substantial (i.e., $580,428.31), the fact is that there are other items within the Defects of the Building, which continue to be in dispute up to a value of $87,844.84: see the table titled 'Rectification Works Quantum' attached to the Builder's submission dated 1 September 2025. In and of itself, those matters do not bar the making of orders as sought by the Builder (otherwise, there would be no compromises between any parties to a home building dispute at an interlocutory stage of a proceeding); but in my determination, these matters weigh against the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to make a work order under the HB Act, especially considering the OC's position, which is to pursue the entirety of its building claim in a court of competent jurisdiction.
6. As referred to, during argument for the hearing, I directed further written submissions addressing the OC's submission that in addition to other discretionary considerations, the Tribunal should not make a work order as asked by the Builder because such order would significantly prejudice the OC's Renewal rights if the Builder does not comply with a work order.
7. In its written submission dated 16 September 2025, the Builder said this, in answer to the OC's submission about the OC's Renewal rights:

"12. In short, the Renewal provisions are beneficial powers included in the [NCAT Act] to facilitate enforcement of the Tribunal's powers. The Tribunal's powers in Renewal proceedings are cast in general terms which pick up its general powers to deal with the proceeding before it - as provided by the [NCAT Act] and the enabling legislation, here the [HB Act].

13. The Tribunal's powers include the power to transfer proceedings, per [NCAT Act] Sch 4, cl 6. There (are) no express terms in Sch 4 cl 8 or in any other provision of the [NCAT Act] or the [HB Act] to suggest that in dealing with Renewal proceedings, the Tribunal does not enjoy the full armoury of its powers, as conferred in express terms by the [NCAT Act]."

1. I disagree with the Builder's submission. The Tribunal does not have the full armoury of its powers in a Renewal proceeding. Certainly, the Tribunal has power under Sch 4 cl 6(1) of the NCAT Act to order the transfer of a proceeding brought in the Tribunal to a court of competent jurisdiction. In fact, an order made pursuant to that power is now sought by the OC via its Transfer Application lodged on 24 July 2025, and there is no doubt that such an order can be the subject of an interlocutory decision in an original proceeding, where an order under s 48O(1)(a) of the HB Act (i.e., a money order) is sought in the alternative. However, the power in Sch 4 cl 6(1) is not to be conflated with the Tribunal's Renewal mechanism under Sch 4, cl 8(4) of the NCAT Act, which provides:

When proceedings have been renewed in accordance with this clause, the Tribunal -

(a) may make any other appropriate order under this Act or enabling legislation as it could have made when the matter was originally determined, or

(b) may refuse to make such an order.

1. The meaning of the word "appropriate" expressed in Sch 4 cl 8(4), was discussed in the often-quoted Appeal Panel decision of Blessed Sydney Constructions Pty Ltd v Vasudevan [2018] NSWCATAP 98 (Blessed Sydney) at [43]:

"For these reasons, the text of cl 8(4)(a) and its context and purpose lead us to the view that "appropriate" in that clause should be construed as referring to an order that is suitable or fitting in light of:

(1) the general law principles, whether legal or equitable, and statutory provisions applicable in respect of the type of relief claimed on the renewal application;

(2) the fact that there has been non-compliance, within the time specified, with the order originally determined to be appropriate and a renewal application has been made;

(3) all other relevant circumstances, whether occurring before or after the proceedings were originally determined."

1. In my determination, applying cl 8(4)(a) of Sch 4 in the way stated in Blessed Sydney, the Tribunal does not have the power in a Renewal proceeding to transfer proceedings after a work order has been made in the original proceeding. This is because such an order would not be an "appropriate order" in the Renewal proceeding. Just as in an original proceeding the Tribunal has power to make a work order under s 48O(1)(c)(i) of the HB Act unrestrained by the value of the work order (i.e., its value could exceed $500,000), if an applicant then renews proceedings in the Tribunal and makes a "claim" for an "amount" (e.g., by way of damages under s 48O(1)(a) on account of the cost of engaging another builder to perform work), then the jurisdiction restriction of $500,000 operates by reason of s 48K(1) of the HB Act: see, for example, The Owners - Strata Plan 93227 v In Style Developments Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 154 at [118]. This outcome is consistent with the reasoning in Akratos v Papadopoulos [2016] NSWCATAP 139 at [36] (cited in Blessed Sydney at [51]) that "the purpose of the renewal proceedings was to consider, in light of the fact that the original order was not complied with, what other appropriate orders it could have made when the matter was originally determined and not to reconsider the substantive merits of the respondent's building claim".
2. Accordingly, the prejudice to the OC on a Renewal (i.e., limiting a money claim to no more than $500,000) should the Builder fail to comply with a work order in this proceeding, is a further discretionary consideration which weighs against making a work order as now sought in the Builder's Work Order Application.

1. In Sunaust Properties Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan 64807 [2022] NSWSC 1643 at [50] the Court stated that the transfer of proceedings from a tribunal is the subject of a discretionary power, which is to be exercised having regard to the circumstances of the case and so that justice is best served between the parties. In BKB Constructions Pty Ltd v Sawan [2022] NSWCATAP 103, the Appeal Panel stated the relevant principles at [76] (omitting case citations):

"Under Cl. 6 of Sch. 4 of the NCAT Act, the Tribunal may transfer proceedings to a Court by the motion of a party or its own motion. In making a decision whether or not to transfer proceedings, there is a wide discretion to take into account any relevant matter ... The fundamental consideration is whether there is "sufficient cause"; "sound ground"; or "good reason" for the transfer to be made. That permits a wide range of discretionary considerations. Those considerations may be impressionistic and evaluative ... Where there is a significant risk the jurisdictional limit will be exceeded; or whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction at all, are important considerations ..."

1. In terms of the standard of evidence required to support an application to transfer a proceeding, the Appeal Panel said in Promina Design & Construction Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan No 97449 [2023] NSWCATAP 252 (Promina Design):

"[99] The basis upon which the respondent sought, and the Tribunal made, an order transferring the proceedings to the District Court was that the amount claimed (or to be claimed) by the respondent exceeded $500,000. Provided the applicant for transfer puts forward credible evidence that the amount of its claim will exceed $500,000, then, subject to discretionary considerations arising from the party's conduct of the proceedings to that time, it would ordinarily be appropriate to make an order for transfer to a court so that the applicant is able to pursue the whole of its claim.

[100] ...

[101] An applicant seeking to transfer proceedings to a court on the basis that they have identified that their claim is likely to exceed the monetary limit of the Tribunal's jurisdiction must do more than simply make that assertion. Some evidence that the claim will exceed the monetary jurisdiction will be necessary, but, as the respondent submits, it would not be consistent with the guiding principle for the Tribunal to be required to undertake a detailed examination of that evidence. A fortiori it would not be consistent with the guiding principle for the Tribunal to hold a contested hearing into the evidence."

1. In the present case, I find that there is sufficient cause for the OC's Transfer Application, and that it is arguable the Owners Corporation's claim exceeds $500,000, which is the jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal under s 48K(1) of the HB Act. I am further satisfied that the discretionary considerations weigh in favour of an order to transfer the proceeding to the District Court of New South Wales, and that the OC has discharged its onus with evidence to support the Transfer Application.
2. I find there is credible evidence in the expert witness report of the Quantity Surveyor, Mr Madden, dated 6 June 2025, that the OC has a reasonably arguable claim for an amount of over $500,000. In this regard, at [8.1] of page 11 of the report, Mr Madden opines that the total cost to rectify the defective works which refer to numerous instances of water penetration and mould affecting the structural elements, is $668,273.15. Importantly in this respect, the Builder in its submissions dated 1 September 2025 concedes that the value of the works it is willing to rectify, in fact, exceeds $500,000: see the table attached to the submissions titled 'Rectification Works Quantum, which refers to an amount of $580,428.31 as the final costs of the defects the Builder is seeking to rectify. In my view, the Builder's concession weighs heavily in favour of the OC's Transfer Application.
3. The Builder has two objections to the OC's Transfer Application:

(a) That the OC has not sought leave to amend its claim, i.e., to increase the amount of its monetary claim, such that it is not apparent the case currently before the Tribunal is one that claims more than the s 48K(1) jurisdiction, and

(b) That in the heading for s 48L of the HB Act, and by the text of that section, the Tribunal is identified as the forum which is to be "chiefly responsible for resolving building claims", such that in the context of the Builder's Work Order Application, a work order for agreed defects may be made, and once made, the value of the OC's claim would fall within the Tribunal's jurisdictional limit.

1. As to the second objection, I am satisfied for the reasons given earlier, that I should decline to make any orders in respect of the Builder's Work Order Application, such that I find the argument as regards s 48L of the HB Act does not operate in the circumstances. I decline to make a work order as sought by the Builder, because various discretionary considerations apply including my acceptance of the OC's argument that in any subsequent Renewal in respect of a work order not complied with by the Builder, the OC would be prejudiced in that it would be restricted to a monetary claim of no more than $500,000.
2. In respect of the Builder's first objection, an application to amend the OC's claim is not a necessary precondition to a finding in favour of the Owners' Transfer Application: see, for example, Promina Design at [97]; see also The Owners - Strata Plan 92334 v Piety Capital Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 22 (Piety Capital) at [64]. As in this case, the applicant in Piety Capital sought a money order in the alternative to a work order, but the Tribunal said at [52]:

"In this case, although the application form indicates that the Owners were seeking a work order to the approximate value of $500,000, the points of claim indicate show that the Owners are also seeking damages. In these circumstances, I accept that a money order has always been sought, even if only in the alternative to a work order."

1. Nevertheless, even though it is not necessary that a party applying to transfer proceedings to a court make a formal application to amend their case before an order for transfer can be made, the OC now seeks an amendment of the application in any event: see the OC's written submission dated 2 September 2025 at [6].
2. The NCAT Act, in s 53(1) and s 53(2), allows the Tribunal to amend applications:

53 Amendments and irregularities

(1) The Tribunal may, in any proceedings, make any amendments to any document (for example, an application or appeal) filed in connection with the proceedings that the Tribunal considers to be necessary in the interests of justice.

(2) Any such amendment may be made:

(a) at any stage of the proceedings, and

(b) on such terms as the Tribunal thinks fit,

but may only be made after giving notice to the party to whom the amendment relates.

1. Although the OC did not provide evidence specifically addressing "the interests of justice", I am satisfied that the interests of the OC in being able to enforce the statutory warranties under the HB Act to their full extent outweigh the interests of the Builder in keeping the proceeding in the Tribunal. I accept the OC's submission (see written submissions dated 18 August 2025 at [6]) that it will suffer substantial prejudice if the proceeding is dismissed under s 55(1)(a) of the NCAT Act (i.e., because it is withdrawn), rather than transferred to the District Court. This is because any fresh application to the District Court brought by the OC seeking to enforce statutory warranties in respect of the Defects, will be time-barred.
2. As indicated, I am satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice for the matter to be transferred to a jurisdiction in which the full extent of the OC's claim can be argued.
3. In circumstances where there appears to be no real dispute that the cost of rectification of the claimed defects is likely to exceed $500,000, where refusal of the Transfer Application may have the effect of limiting the Owners' remedy to a sum significantly less than the likely rectification cost, where there is expert evidence in support of the OC's claim in respect of defective residential building work and where the statutory warranty period in respect of the Defects has now expired, I am satisfied that an amendment of the application is necessary in the interests of justice.
4. I am satisfied that a transfer of the proceeding to the District Court will not limit the ability of either the Builder or the Developer to defend the OC's claim. To the extent that the Builder and the Developer have incurred any additional costs arising from the OC's delay in obtaining evidence generally but especially quantum evidence, I am satisfied that this can be dealt with in the context of the determination of costs.
5. As I am satisfied that an amendment of the application should be allowed to bring the amount claimed outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the discretion to transfer the proceeding to the District Court should be exercised in favour of the Owners Corporation.

1. Both parties seek orders for costs in respect of the Applications, although neither has yet provided written submissions on the issue of costs.
2. As the amount claimed in the proceeding exceeds $30,000, r 38 of the Civil and Administrative Rules 2014 NSW, and not s 60 of the NCAT Act, applies in relation to costs. This means that special circumstances do not need to be established for a costs order to be made. The usual rule in relation to costs, applies, i.e., that costs 'follow the event', absent some disentitling behaviour by the successful party: Latoudis v Casey [1990] HCA 59; [1990] 170 CLR 534; Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11
3. Where an order is made transferring proceedings from the Tribunal to a Court, it is usual to make an order requiring the applicant for transfer to pay the other parties' costs arising from the transfer. I propose to make such an order in this case, subject to the next paragraph.
4. The Builder has been unsuccessful in both its application for a work order and in opposing the OCs application to transfer the proceeding. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the Builder should pay the Owners' costs of the said Applications on the ordinary basis as agreed or as assessed in accordance with the applicable costs' assessment legislation.
5. I have given the parties an opportunity to apply for a different costs order.

1. For the foregoing reasons, I make the following orders and directions:

(1) The application of the first respondent, Decode Sydney Pty Ltd (Builder) for a work order (Work Order Application), is refused.

(2) The application of the applicant, The Owners - Strata Plan 96987 (Owners Corporation) is amended pursuant to s 53(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW to an amount exceeding $500,000.

(3) The proceeding is transferred to the District Court of New South Wales pursuant to cl 6(1) of Schedule 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and is to continue in that Court as if it had been instituted there.

(4) Subject to order 5, the Builder is to pay the Owners Corporation's costs of the Work Order Application and the application of the Owners Corporation to transfer the proceeding to the District Court of New South Wales, on the ordinary basis, as agreed or as assessed.

(5) Otherwise, the Owners Corporation is to pay the parties' costs arising from the transfer of the proceeding, on the ordinary basis, as agreed or as assessed.

(6) Orders 4 and 5 are suspended and the following orders take effect if any party seeks costs orders different to orders 4 and 5 (an alternative costs order).

(7) The party seeking an alternative costs order (the costs applicant) is to file and serve its costs application and a brief submission (no more than 3 A4 size pages) in support of the application within 14 days of the publication of these orders.

(8) The costs respondent(s) is/are to file and serve any submissions (no more than 3 A4 size pages) in response to the costs' application within 14 days thereafter.

(9) The costs' applicant is to file and serve any submissions in reply (no more than 2 A4 size pages) within seven days thereafter.

(10) If more than one party applies for an alternative costs order, the parties are to file an indexed and paginated costs bundle at the end of the submission period.

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.