Jones v Dempsey [2015] NSWCATAP 28

Jones v Dempsey [2015] NSWCATAP 28

The Appeal Panel had jurisdiction because the consent orders were a decision of the Tribunal in proceedings for a general decision, but Mr Jones did not establish any error of law or provide evidence of facts showing fraud, mistake, duress, undue influence, misrepresentation or other vitiating circumstances affecting the consent orders. Nor was the Appeal Panel satisfied that he may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From Consent Orders of the Consumer and Commercial Division Concerning Alleged Defective Building Work / Appeal Determined on the Papers; Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Consent Orders' 'jurisdiction of Appeal Panel' 'leave to Appeal' 'error of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'duress, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation or Other Grounds to Set Aside Consent Orders' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'consumer and Commercial Law' 'home Building Disputes'] ['appeal From Consent Orders' 'jurisdiction of Appeal Panel' 'leave to Appeal' 'error of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'duress, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation or Other Grounds to Set Aside Consent Orders' 'costs']

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

Internal Appeal From Consent Orders of the Consumer and Commercial Division Concerning Alleged Defective Building Work / Appeal Determined on the Papers; Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Appeal Panel had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from orders made by consent.' 'Whether the Tribunal made an error of law by making the consent orders on 29 October 2014.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis that the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice.' 'Whether the circumstances alleged by the appellant established a basis to set aside the consent orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel had jurisdiction because the consent orders were a decision of the Tribunal in proceedings for a general decision, but Mr Jones did not establish any error of law or provide evidence of facts showing fraud, mistake, duress, undue influence, misrepresentation or other vitiating circumstances affecting the consent orders. Nor was the Appeal Panel satisfied that he may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal on a question of law is dismissed and leave is refused for Mr Jones to appeal on other grounds.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']