The Craftsmen Restoration & Renovations v Thomas Boland, Thomas Boland v The Craftsmen Restoration & Renovations [2008] NSWSC 660

The Craftsmen Restoration & Renovations v Thomas Boland, Thomas Boland v The Craftsmen Restoration & Renovations [2008] NSWSC 660

The Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting the term 'breach' under clause 12.3 of the contract, but other challenged findings were factual, not legal. The Tribunal should have included certain additional items in damages, awarded some expert costs, and allowed interest as part of compensatory damages but was correct to reject most other complaints.

Parties
Builder: The Craftsmen Restoration & Renovations Pty Ltd; Owner: Thomas Boland; Owner: Crown Solicitor; Tribunal: Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT); Builder/owner: G Aronstan, Solicitor and Attorney
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From CTTT to the Supreme Court (administrative Law List)
Outcome
Builder's appeal dismissed. Owners' appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Termination of Contract, Breach of Contract, Statutory Warranties, Interest on Damages
Administrative Law Contracts Building and Construction Law Natural Justice Termination of Contract Breach of Contract Statutory Warranties Interest on Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Craftsmen Restoration & Renovations Pty Ltd

Builder

Thomas Boland

Owner

Crown Solicitor

Owner

Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT)

Tribunal

G Aronstan, Solicitor and Attorney

Builder/owner

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From CTTT to the Supreme Court (administrative Law List)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether finding against witness constituted a breach of natural justice
  2. 2 Errors of law by Tribunal including interpretation of contractual provisions for termination
  3. 3 Entitlement to damages and calculation methodology

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting the term 'breach' under clause 12.3 of the contract, but other challenged findings were factual, not legal. The Tribunal should have included certain additional items in damages, awarded some expert costs, and allowed interest as part of compensatory damages but was correct to reject most other complaints.

Court Disposition

Builder's appeal dismissed. Owners' appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • The appeal by The Craftsmen Restoration & Renovations Pty Ltd is dismissed.
  • The appeal by the Bolands is allowed in part.