Excel Concrete (NSW) Pty Ltd v John Matthews trading as Portville Developments & Matthews JV & Ors [2007] NSWSC 575

Excel Concrete (NSW) Pty Ltd v John Matthews trading as Portville Developments & Matthews JV & Ors [2007] NSWSC 575

The appeal was incompetent because Excel's grounds and submissions attacked the Magistrate's factual findings and did not identify any question of mixed law and fact or any error of law. The damages ground also failed because the Magistrate did not find that the defective work had been made good, Excel was not entitled to the full agreed price for defective concrete, and no error of law in the assessment of rectification damages was identified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Local Court Decision / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 74 of the Local Courts Act 1982
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Local Court' 'question of Mixed Fact and Law' 'question of Law' 'goods Sold and Delivered' 'defective Concrete' 'rectification Damages']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law'] ['appeal From Local Court' 'question of Mixed Fact and Law' 'question of Law' 'goods Sold and Delivered' 'defective Concrete' 'rectification Damages']

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 From Local Court Decision / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 74 of the Local Courts Act 1982

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff identified a question of mixed law and fact sufficient to found an appeal by leave under s 74 of the Local Courts Act 1982.' 'Whether the Magistrate made an error of law in assessing liability for defective concrete.' "Whether the Magistrate's calculation of damages on the cross-claim was infected with a fundamental error."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was incompetent because Excel's grounds and submissions attacked the Magistrate's factual findings and did not identify any question of mixed law and fact or any error of law. The damages ground also failed because the Magistrate did not find that the defective work had been made good, Excel was not entitled to the full agreed price for defective concrete, and no error of law in the assessment of rectification damages was identified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']