Kora v Ian’s Roofing Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 42

Kora v Ian’s Roofing Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 42

The Homeowners failed to identify any question of law justifying intervention by the Appeal Panel. Leave to appeal was refused for other grounds as there was no substantial miscarriage of justice, no clear error by the Tribunal, and no new evidence warranting reconsideration. The Tribunal's findings and orders were supported by the evidence provided at first instance, and the Appeal Panel was not satisfied that any criteria for granting leave to appeal were met.

Parties
First Appellant: Carl d'Entremont; Second Appellant: Naomi Kora; First Respondent: Ian Greenslade; Second Respondent: Ian's Roofing Pty Ltd as trustee for the Silva Family Trust
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal (appeal Panel)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Tribunal Internal Appeals, Questions of Law, Leave to Appeal Criteria, Statutory Warranties in Residential Building, Australian Consumer Law Guarantees, Procedural Fairness in Tribunal Proceedings
Consumer Law Building and Construction Law Administrative Law Tribunal Internal Appeals Questions of Law Leave to Appeal Criteria Statutory Warranties in Residential Building Australian Consumer Law Guarantees +1 more

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl d'Entremont

First Appellant

Naomi Kora

Second Appellant

Ian Greenslade

First Respondent

Ian's Roofing Pty Ltd as trustee for the Silva Family Trust

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal (appeal Panel)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal raises questions of law justifying intervention of the Appeal Panel
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted for grounds not involving questions of law
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in excluding new evidence on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Homeowners failed to identify any question of law justifying intervention by the Appeal Panel. Leave to appeal was refused for other grounds as there was no substantial miscarriage of justice, no clear error by the Tribunal, and no new evidence warranting reconsideration. The Tribunal's findings and orders were supported by the evidence provided at first instance, and the Appeal Panel was not satisfied that any criteria for granting leave to appeal were met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • In the appeal in relation to matters HB 22/34909 and HB 22/36753: (a) in so far as the appeal raises questions of law, the appeal is dismissed; (b) in so far as the appeal raises other errors, leave to appeal is refused, and the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
  • If the respondents seek an order as to costs, they should file and serve any submissions within 14 days of the date of publication of these reasons.