Brian Burston & Associates Pty Ltd v Keyter [2018] NSWCATAP 302

Brian Burston & Associates Pty Ltd v Keyter [2018] NSWCATAP 302

The Appeal Panel held that Mr Burston had repudiated the contract by failing to complete the contracted work or respond to Ms Keyter's reasonable demand within time, entitling her to treat the contract as repudiated and to seek repayment. No error of law was found, and leave to appeal was refused as none of the grounds for miscarriage of justice were established. The implied licence argument regarding copyright was not central to the Tribunal’s determination which rested on non-completion and failure to respond.

Parties
Appellant: Brian Burston & Associates Pty Ltd; Respondent: Louise Keyter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision of Appeal Panel
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Repudiation of Contract, Copyright in Architectural Drawings, Appeals, Error of Law, Leave to Appeal
Contracts Consumer Law Repudiation of Contract Copyright in Architectural Drawings Appeals Error of Law Leave to Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Burston & Associates Pty Ltd

Appellant

Louise Keyter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision of Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law regarding copyright in the plans and the availability of an implied licence
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness or denial of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the contract was frustrated or repudiated

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that Mr Burston had repudiated the contract by failing to complete the contracted work or respond to Ms Keyter's reasonable demand within time, entitling her to treat the contract as repudiated and to seek repayment. No error of law was found, and leave to appeal was refused as none of the grounds for miscarriage of justice were established. The implied licence argument regarding copyright was not central to the Tribunal’s determination which rested on non-completion and failure to respond.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Each party to pay their own costs.