Pfeffer v Driftwood Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 133

Pfeffer v Driftwood Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 133

The decision below involved a clear error of law because the reasons did not adequately explain the preference for the builder's evidence, the inference that the homeowners approved extra work, or the conclusion that the invoiced amounts were reasonable on a quantum meruit basis. Because those matters depended on evidentiary preferences that were difficult to resolve on appeal, and the Appeal Panel was not clear what material had been before the member, the proceedings had to be remitted for rehearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Home Building Dispute / Appeal Panel Hearing From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal upheld; proceedings remitted for rehearing; order below set aside.
Legal Topics
['adequacy of Reasons' 'variations' 'quantum Meruit' 'remittal for Rehearing']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer and Commercial' 'home Building'] ['adequacy of Reasons' 'variations' 'quantum Meruit' 'remittal for Rehearing']

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

Appeal in Home Building Dispute / Appeal Panel Hearing From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal below gave adequate reasons for preferring the builder's evidence over the homeowners' evidence." 'Whether the findings about extra work, approval by the homeowners, and reasonable amounts claimed on a quantum meruit basis were supported by adequate reasons.' 'Whether the appeal should be determined on the appeal material or remitted for rehearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The decision below involved a clear error of law because the reasons did not adequately explain the preference for the builder's evidence, the inference that the homeowners approved extra work, or the conclusion that the invoiced amounts were reasonable on a quantum meruit basis. Because those matters depended on evidentiary preferences that were difficult to resolve on appeal, and the Appeal Panel was not clear what material had been before the member, the proceedings had to be remitted for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; proceedings remitted for rehearing; order below set aside.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' 'Proceedings below to be remitted to the Consumer and Commercial Division for a rehearing before a Senior Member.' 'The order made on 7 February 2017 is set aside.']