Laurence and Tanya Matty v Scott and Julie Boyd t/as Vast Constructions [2015] NSWCATAP 100

Laurence and Tanya Matty v Scott and Julie Boyd t/as Vast Constructions [2015] NSWCATAP 100

Leave to appeal was not warranted for the appellants' general challenge because the Tribunal's findings that the appellants denied the respondents a reasonable opportunity to return and rectify were supported by the evidence and were not shown to be unfair or inequitable. However, it was common ground that the engineering certificates required by the original orders had not been provided, which was unfair and inequitable because it impeded the appellants' ability to obtain a final occupation certificate. That created a substantial miscarriage of justice unless remedied, so leave was granted only on that issue and the cost of obtaining the certificates was deducted from the amount...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in Home Building Proceedings / Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Refusing Renewal of Orders
Outcome
The appeal was allowed in part; Order 2 made on 28 October 2014 was set aside; the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents $20,130.86 forthwith; the appeal was otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'renewal of Proceedings' 'rectification Orders' 'engineering Certificates']
['civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'home Building' 'consumer and Commercial'] ['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'renewal of Proceedings' 'rectification Orders' 'engineering Certificates']

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 in Home Building Proceedings / Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Refusing Renewal of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted where no question of law was identified by the appellants.' "Whether the Tribunal's refusal to renew the earlier orders was not fair and equitable or against the weight of evidence." 'Whether non-provision of engineering certificates required by the original orders caused a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting appellate intervention.' 'What order should be made concerning the amount payable by the appellants to the respondents after accounting for the cost of obtaining engineering certificates.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was not warranted for the appellants' general challenge because the Tribunal's findings that the appellants denied the respondents a reasonable opportunity to return and rectify were supported by the evidence and were not shown to be unfair or inequitable. However, it was common ground that the engineering certificates required by the original orders had not been provided, which was unfair and inequitable because it impeded the appellants' ability to obtain a final occupation certificate. That created a substantial miscarriage of justice unless remedied, so leave was granted only on that issue and the cost of obtaining the certificates was deducted from the amount...

Court Disposition

The appeal was allowed in part; Order 2 made on 28 October 2014 was set aside; the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents $20,130.86 forthwith; the appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed in part.' 'Order 2 made on 28 October 2014 is set aside.' 'The appellants are to pay the respondents the sum of $20,130.86 forthwith.' 'The appeal is otherwise dismissed.']