Giro Constructions Pty Ltd v Smith [2015] NSWCATAP 213

Giro Constructions Pty Ltd v Smith [2015] NSWCATAP 213

There was evidence before the Tribunal capable of supporting the finding that the floorboards were laid with excessive moisture; the reasons given were adequate; procedural fairness was not denied; and the decision was not against the weight of evidence or unjust, so the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Giro Constructions Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Haydn Smith; Second Respondent: Weyitin Trading Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Determination of Internal Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Evidentiary Support for Findings, Adequacy of Reasons, Procedural Fairness, Appeals
Building and Construction Tribunal Procedure Evidentiary Support for Findings Adequacy of Reasons Procedural Fairness Appeals

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giro Constructions Pty Ltd

Appellant

Haydn Smith

First Respondent

Weyitin Trading Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Determination of Internal Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence was capable of supporting the finding that the floorboards were installed with excessive moisture content
  2. 2 Whether there was denial of procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether Tribunal's reasons were adequate for its findings

Ratio Decidendi

There was evidence before the Tribunal capable of supporting the finding that the floorboards were laid with excessive moisture; the reasons given were adequate; procedural fairness was not denied; and the decision was not against the weight of evidence or unjust, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal in respect of Grounds 1, 2 and 3 is dismissed.
  • Leave to appeal in respect of Ground 4 is refused.