Falzon v Evans [2021] NSWCATAP 25

Falzon v Evans [2021] NSWCATAP 25

The appellant's delay in filing was not sufficiently explained to warrant an extension of time, and even if granted, the grounds raised did not show any reviewable error of law, denial of procedural fairness, or substantial miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal below made findings of fact it was entitled to make, and alleged new evidence did not meet the statutory threshold for admitting fresh evidence. In the absence of prospects of success, both the extension of time and leave to appeal were refused; the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: David Falzon; Respondent: Jodie Evans
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; extension of time and leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Proof of Loss for Incomplete and Defective Building Work, Extension of Time to Appeal, Requirements for Leave to Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Weight of Evidence in Appeals
Building and Construction Appeals Proof of Loss for Incomplete and Defective Building Work Extension of Time to Appeal Requirements for Leave to Appeal Procedural Fairness Weight of Evidence in Appeals

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Falzon

Appellant

Jodie Evans

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether decision was not fair and equitable or against the weight of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's delay in filing was not sufficiently explained to warrant an extension of time, and even if granted, the grounds raised did not show any reviewable error of law, denial of procedural fairness, or substantial miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal below made findings of fact it was entitled to make, and alleged new evidence did not meet the statutory threshold for admitting fresh evidence. In the absence of prospects of success, both the extension of time and leave to appeal were refused; the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; extension of time and leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time within which to lodge the appeal is refused.
  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.