Zahan and Jubly v Aly Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATAP 55
The 5 December 2022 decision dismissing the quantum meruit claim was a final substantive decision. Aly Pty Ltd was, in substance, the privy or alter ego of Mr Hammoud, and Ms Jubly was a privy of Mr Zahan and had no substantive relevance to the claim. The changes in parties therefore did not displace the res judicata defence, and the later proceedings were barred. The appeal was allowed and the order requiring payment of $3,760 was set aside, with the proceedings dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 April 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Internal Appeal From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Home Building Proceedings / Appeal Panel Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed.
- Legal Topics
- ['res Judicata' 'privies' 'abuse of Process' 'quantum Meruit' 'internal Appeals']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Home Building Proceedings / Appeal Panel Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the 5 December 2022 dismissal of the quantum meruit claim in proceedings HB 22/26909 was a final decision on the substantive merits or a procedural dismissal only.' 'Whether res judicata applied despite Aly Pty Ltd being substituted as applicant and Farzana Jubly being added as a respondent in the later proceedings.' "Whether the Tribunal's finding that the applicant had engaged in an abuse of process should have led to dismissal of the application." 'Whether the order requiring payment for variations on a quantum meruit basis should stand.']
Ratio Decidendi
The 5 December 2022 decision dismissing the quantum meruit claim was a final substantive decision. Aly Pty Ltd was, in substance, the privy or alter ego of Mr Hammoud, and Ms Jubly was a privy of Mr Zahan and had no substantive relevance to the claim. The changes in parties therefore did not displace the res judicata defence, and the later proceedings were barred. The appeal was allowed and the order requiring payment of $3,760 was set aside, with the proceedings dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed.
Orders
- ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside order 1 made by the Tribunal on 20 October 2023 in proceedings HB 22/54066 and in substitution order that those proceedings be dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment