Ayoub v CPT Corp Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 259

Ayoub v CPT Corp Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATAP 259

The Appeal Panel held that the appellant was denied procedural fairness because the respondent's case, including the manufacturer's brochures and opinion evidence that Stratco Superdek should be pan fixed rather than crest fixed, was not served in accordance with the Tribunal's directions and was material that ought properly to have been put to the appellant's expert for response. The appellant therefore did not have a fair opportunity to put her whole case. The Tribunal also ought not to have granted leave to Mr Lee to represent the respondent while giving primarily expert opinion evidence as the respondent's works supervisor and advocate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Civil and Administrative Tribunal (nsw), Consumer and Commercial Division, Home Building List / Appeal Allowed and Matter Remitted
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Tribunal to be heard and determined by a differently constituted Tribunal.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'expert Evidence' 'opportunity to Reply' 'representation by Witness']
['civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'home Building' 'administrative Law'] ['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'expert Evidence' 'opportunity to Reply' 'representation by Witness']

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

Appeal From Civil and Administrative Tribunal (nsw), Consumer and Commercial Division, Home Building List / Appeal Allowed and Matter Remitted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal denied the appellant procedural fairness by admitting and relying on the respondent's manufacturer's brochures and opinion evidence without giving the appellant a fair opportunity to respond." "Whether the respondent's representative, who supervised the work and gave opinion evidence, should have been permitted to represent the respondent." 'Whether leave to appeal was required where the appeal raised a question of law based on alleged denial of procedural fairness.' 'Whether the Tribunal evinced bias.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that the appellant was denied procedural fairness because the respondent's case, including the manufacturer's brochures and opinion evidence that Stratco Superdek should be pan fixed rather than crest fixed, was not served in accordance with the Tribunal's directions and was material that ought properly to have been put to the appellant's expert for response. The appellant therefore did not have a fair opportunity to put her whole case. The Tribunal also ought not to have granted leave to Mr Lee to represent the respondent while giving primarily expert opinion evidence as the respondent's works supervisor and advocate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the Tribunal to be heard and determined by a differently constituted Tribunal.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Matter remitted to the Tribunal to be heard and determined by a differently constituted Tribunal.']