Giblin v Jammal [1999] NSWSC 216

Giblin v Jammal [1999] NSWSC 216

The Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction because no proper objection was taken, the later Scott Schedules were not separate claims depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction, and the only final order was for $3,162, within the $25,000 limit. However, natural justice was denied because the Tribunal's reasons did not disclose which defect items were allowed or rejected or why, and the Tribunal summarily dismissed the plaintiffs' further Scott Schedule under s 27A despite expert evidence supporting some amount and without notifying the plaintiffs or giving them an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal's order therefore had to be quashed and the matter remitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Proceedings Seeking Prerogative Relief in Relation to a Consumer Claims Tribunal Building Disputes Decision / Final Judgment
Outcome
Decision of the Consumer Claims Tribunal quashed and proceedings remitted to the Tribunal for further hearing; first defendant ordered to pay one half of the plaintiffs' costs.
Legal Topics
['natural Justice' 'jurisdiction' 'consumer Claims Tribunal Monetary Limit' 'reasons for Decision' 'summary Dismissal' 'set Off and Cross Claims']
['administrative Law' 'consumer Claims Tribunal' 'building and Construction Disputes'] ['natural Justice' 'jurisdiction' 'consumer Claims Tribunal Monetary Limit' 'reasons for Decision' 'summary Dismissal' 'set Off and Cross Claims']

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

Administrative Law Proceedings Seeking Prerogative Relief in Relation to a Consumer Claims Tribunal Building Disputes Decision / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Consumer Claims Tribunal failed to rule on or exceeded its jurisdiction in circumstances involving claimed defects and cross-claims exceeding $25,000.' "Whether amounts established on a cross-claim or set-off could be aggregated with the claimant's entitlement so as to exceed the Tribunal's jurisdictional limit." "Whether the Tribunal denied natural justice by relying on expert material, giving inadequate reasons, and summarily dismissing the plaintiffs' further Scott Schedule without notice or opportunity to be heard."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction because no proper objection was taken, the later Scott Schedules were not separate claims depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction, and the only final order was for $3,162, within the $25,000 limit. However, natural justice was denied because the Tribunal's reasons did not disclose which defect items were allowed or rejected or why, and the Tribunal summarily dismissed the plaintiffs' further Scott Schedule under s 27A despite expert evidence supporting some amount and without notifying the plaintiffs or giving them an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal's order therefore had to be quashed and the matter remitted.

Court Disposition

Decision of the Consumer Claims Tribunal quashed and proceedings remitted to the Tribunal for further hearing; first defendant ordered to pay one half of the plaintiffs' costs.

Orders

  • ['Order in the nature of certiorari removing the proceedings of the Tribunal BSY 97/540 into the Court and quashing the order of 18 June 1998.' 'Proceedings remitted to the Tribunal for further hearing.' "First defendant to pay one half of the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings." 'First defendant to have a...