Woolfe v Alexander Sussman t/as A Sussman Construction Consulting Services & Anor [2001] NSWSC 702

Woolfe v Alexander Sussman t/as A Sussman Construction Consulting Services & Anor [2001] NSWSC 702

The services provided by the first defendant were not 'residential building work' as defined in the Home Building Act 1989, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Further, the plaintiff was denied natural justice by not being properly notified of the decision due to incorrect address records.

Parties
Plaintiff: Denise Woolfe; First Defendant: Alex Sussman t/as A Sussman Construction Consulting Services; Second Defendant: Fair Trading Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Fair Trading Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Decision of the Tribunal quashed; orders for costs to the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Natural Justice, Residential Building Work Definition
Administrative Law Building and Construction Law Jurisdiction of Tribunal Natural Justice Residential Building Work Definition

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denise Woolfe

Plaintiff

Alex Sussman t/as A Sussman Construction Consulting Services

First Defendant

Fair Trading Tribunal

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Fair Trading Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Fair Trading Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the building dispute claim
  2. 2 Whether goods or services provided were 'residential building work' under the Home Building Act 1989
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff was denied natural justice due to failure to record correct address and notify decision

Ratio Decidendi

The services provided by the first defendant were not 'residential building work' as defined in the Home Building Act 1989, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Further, the plaintiff was denied natural justice by not being properly notified of the decision due to incorrect address records.

Court Disposition

Decision of the Tribunal quashed; orders for costs to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Order 2 in the amended summons made
  • First defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs