GMK Developing Services Pty Ltd v Curcio [2015] NSWCATAP 115

GMK Developing Services Pty Ltd v Curcio [2015] NSWCATAP 115

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant did not raise an issue of principle, a question of public importance, or a matter of administration or policy of general application, and did not establish a reasonably clear injustice, an unreasonable or clearly mistaken factual error, or an unorthodox fact-finding process likely to produce an unfair result. The Appeal Panel also saw no reason to disturb the costs order because all 16 items remaining in dispute after the experts' hot tub were ordered to be rectified in some way.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'defective Residential Building Work' 'rectification Orders' 'expert Evidence' 'costs of Expert Reports']
['administrative Law' 'consumer and Commercial Law' 'residential Building Work'] ['leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'defective Residential Building Work' 'rectification Orders' 'expert Evidence' 'costs of Expert Reports']

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 a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Consumer and Commercial Division decision.' "Whether the Tribunal's decision was against the weight of evidence or involved a substantial miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the rectification orders for items 7.2, 7.4, 7.12 and 7.14 should be disturbed.' "Whether the order requiring the builder to pay costs of Mr Beard's report, attendances and engineering advice should be disturbed."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant did not raise an issue of principle, a question of public importance, or a matter of administration or policy of general application, and did not establish a reasonably clear injustice, an unreasonable or clearly mistaken factual error, or an unorthodox fact-finding process likely to produce an unfair result. The Appeal Panel also saw no reason to disturb the costs order because all 16 items remaining in dispute after the experts' hot tub were ordered to be rectified in some way.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']