McLaughlin Building Services Pty Limited & McLaughlin v Bannister & Bradstreet [2000] NSWFTT 6

McLaughlin Building Services Pty Limited & McLaughlin v Bannister & Bradstreet [2000] NSWFTT 6

Substantial injustice under s 63 requires that procedural or substantive errors disadvantage the applicant; while the Tribunal made errors including improper application of quantum meruit and admission of evidence, the major error advantaged the applicants and cannot amount to substantial injustice justifying a rehearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Rehearing / Final Determination
Outcome
applications for rehearing refused
Legal Topics
['rehearing Applications' 'substantial Injustice' 'natural Justice' 'contractual Rights' 'quantum Meruit' 'unjust Enrichment' 'insurance Requirements' 'evidence and Privilege' 'conciliation']
['home Building' 'consumer Law'] ['rehearing Applications' 'substantial Injustice' 'natural Justice' 'contractual Rights' 'quantum Meruit' 'unjust Enrichment' 'insurance Requirements' 'evidence and Privilege' 'conciliation']

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

Application for Rehearing / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether applicants suffered substantial injustice warranting rehearing under s 63 of Fair Trading Tribunal Act 1998' 'Whether procedural and substantive errors in the original hearing amounted to denial of natural justice' 'Whether insurance requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 precluded recovery by the contractor' 'Whether Tribunal correctly applied the law in force at relevant times, especially relating to retrospective application of s 94(3)' 'Whether improper admission of evidence and limitation of hearing time warranted rehearing']

Ratio Decidendi

Substantial injustice under s 63 requires that procedural or substantive errors disadvantage the applicant; while the Tribunal made errors including improper application of quantum meruit and admission of evidence, the major error advantaged the applicants and cannot amount to substantial injustice justifying a rehearing.

Court Disposition

applications for rehearing refused

Orders

  • ['The applications for rehearing are refused.']