Redman v Sazdanoff & Ors [2010] NSWDC 254

Redman v Sazdanoff & Ors [2010] NSWDC 254

Although the Tribunal erred in law by treating the unaccepted quotation as an enforceable written contract, the Tribunal found as facts that there were two oral contracts, that the first was varied, and that the defendants had fully performed their payment obligations. Those findings of fact were not challengeable on appeal, and the plaintiff could not pursue quantum meruit where the agreed remuneration had been paid. There was therefore no material error of law requiring the appeal to be allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2010
Procedural Posture
CTTT Appeal in District Court Civil / Appeal From a Decision of Senior Member Connolly in the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Dated 18 August 2009
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['home Building Contract Requirements' 'enforceability of Oral Contracts' 'quantum Meruit' 'appeal on Error of Law' 'findings of Fact on Appeal' 'extension of Time']
['building and Construction' 'contract Law' 'civil Procedure' 'restitution and Unjust Enrichment'] ['home Building Contract Requirements' 'enforceability of Oral Contracts' 'quantum Meruit' 'appeal on Error of Law' 'findings of Fact on Appeal' 'extension of Time']

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

CTTT Appeal in District Court Civil / Appeal From a Decision of Senior Member Connolly in the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Dated 18 August 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in law by finding that a quotation could be relied upon as a written contract complying with section 7 of the Home Building Act 1989.' 'Whether the plaintiff could recover on a quantum meruit basis despite findings that oral contracts existed and had been fully performed by the defendants.' "Whether the Tribunal's findings about the terms of the oral contracts and payments made were challengeable on appeal." 'Whether time for commencement of the appeal should be extended despite non-compliance with Rule 50.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Tribunal erred in law by treating the unaccepted quotation as an enforceable written contract, the Tribunal found as facts that there were two oral contracts, that the first was varied, and that the defendants had fully performed their payment obligations. Those findings of fact were not challengeable on appeal, and the plaintiff could not pursue quantum meruit where the agreed remuneration had been paid. There was therefore no material error of law requiring the appeal to be allowed.

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal." 'The affidavit evidence is returned.']