Robinson v Construction & Design Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 314

Robinson v Construction & Design Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 314

The primary judge did not use the agreed documents as evidence of the truth of matters they asserted, but rather to corroborate or confirm other properly admitted evidence, which was not inconsistent with the agreement (MFI-4). The trial judge's approach to assessment of loss and application of Mills v Walsh was not in error. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
First Appellant: Nerida Robinson; Second Appellant: Mark Bowmer; First Respondent: Construction & Design Australia Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Gerard Peter Turnbull; Third Respondent: Daniel John Turnbull
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Documentary Evidence, Proof of Contents of Documents, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Australian Consumer Law
Evidence Building and Construction Consumer Law Documentary Evidence Proof of Contents of Documents Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Australian Consumer Law

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nerida Robinson

First Appellant

Mark Bowmer

Second Appellant

Construction & Design Australia Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Gerard Peter Turnbull

Second Respondent

Daniel John Turnbull

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether primary judge erred in using certain documents contrary to parties' agreement when making factual findings
  2. 2 Whether primary judge erred in finding that Owners suffered no loss for purposes of misleading or deceptive conduct claim

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge did not use the agreed documents as evidence of the truth of matters they asserted, but rather to corroborate or confirm other properly admitted evidence, which was not inconsistent with the agreement (MFI-4). The trial judge's approach to assessment of loss and application of Mills v Walsh was not in error. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The amended notice of appeal filed 24 July 2024 is dismissed, with costs.