Moore v Gallaria Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 145

Moore v Gallaria Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 145

The appellants did not identify an error of law. Leave was not warranted on procedural fairness because the material before the Appeal Panel indicated that the appellants chose to proceed despite late service and despite being offered an adjournment, and they did not provide a transcript establishing otherwise. The decision was not shown to be against the weight of evidence because the Tribunal Member was entitled to prefer the respondent's stonemason evidence about vein matching over the appellants' non-stonemason evidence, and the evidence did not preponderate so strongly against the result that no reasonable member could reach it. The alleged new evidence was either reasonably...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Supply and Installation of a Natural Stone Kitchen Benchtop / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'decision Against the Weight of Evidence' 'significant New Evidence' 'remedial Work Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer and Commercial' 'home Building and Defective Work'] ['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'decision Against the Weight of Evidence' 'significant New Evidence' 'remedial Work Orders']

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

Internal Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Supply and Installation of a Natural Stone Kitchen Benchtop / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellants identified an error of law in the Tribunal's decision" 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted because the decision was not fair and equitable' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted because the decision was against the weight of evidence' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted because significant new evidence was now available that was not reasonably available at the hearing']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants did not identify an error of law. Leave was not warranted on procedural fairness because the material before the Appeal Panel indicated that the appellants chose to proceed despite late service and despite being offered an adjournment, and they did not provide a transcript establishing otherwise. The decision was not shown to be against the weight of evidence because the Tribunal Member was entitled to prefer the respondent's stonemason evidence about vein matching over the appellants' non-stonemason evidence, and the evidence did not preponderate so strongly against the result that no reasonable member could reach it. The alleged new evidence was either reasonably...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']