Tan v Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 236

Tan v Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 236

The appellants did not demonstrate any error of law, substantial miscarriage of justice, or that any new evidence was not reasonably available at first instance; the findings regarding contract price adjustment, variation claims, and rejection of new evidence were supported on the facts and law; and leave to appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
First Appellant: Hua Yong Tan; Second Appellant: Lui Sing Ling; Third Appellant: Matthew Jin Lin Tan; Respondent: Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Contract Price Adjustment, Variation Claims, Traffic Management Charges, Procedural Fairness, Fresh Evidence in Appeals
Building and Construction Law Contract Price Adjustment Variation Claims Traffic Management Charges Procedural Fairness Fresh Evidence in Appeals

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hua Yong Tan

First Appellant

Lui Sing Ling

Second Appellant

Matthew Jin Lin Tan

Third Appellant

Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were liable for contract price adjustment due to delayed commencement of works
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were liable for variation charges for traffic management and structural steel
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in its findings against the weight of evidence or failed to be fair and equitable

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants did not demonstrate any error of law, substantial miscarriage of justice, or that any new evidence was not reasonably available at first instance; the findings regarding contract price adjustment, variation claims, and rejection of new evidence were supported on the facts and law; and leave to appeal must therefore be refused and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The appeal is dismissed.