Hunter Prestige Childcare Pty Ltd v Ball [2020] NSWCATAP 33

Hunter Prestige Childcare Pty Ltd v Ball [2020] NSWCATAP 33

Ground 1 was dismissed because, even assuming doubt about whether the consent orders were only in the respondents' favour, the combined effect of the Tribunal's holdings caused no substantive injustice by limiting consideration to the rectification work. Ground 2 was dismissed because the appellant identified no...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision in Home Building Proceedings / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal in relation to Ground 3 refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['breach of Consent Orders' 'renewal of Proceedings' 'assessment of Damages' 'leave to Appeal' 'expert Evidence']
['building and Construction' 'contract' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Consent Orders' 'renewal of Proceedings' 'assessment of Damages' 'leave to Appeal' 'expert Evidence']

Source-derived case record

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 Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision in Home Building Proceedings / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to allow the appellant to renew its original proceedings.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to find that rain delayed completion of the rectification work.' 'Whether leave should be granted to argue that the Tribunal erred in failing to find delay caused by the appointment of a supervisor.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the cost to complete incomplete rectification work on the evidence before it.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ground 1 was dismissed because, even assuming doubt about whether the consent orders were only in the respondents' favour, the combined effect of the Tribunal's holdings caused no substantive injustice by limiting consideration to the rectification work. Ground 2 was dismissed because the appellant identified no evidence linking rain to delay. Leave on Ground 3 was refused because no question of law or error was identified and there was no evidence linking delay in appointing a supervisor to delay in the work. Ground 4 was dismissed because no objection to the expert reports was taken below, any non-compliance with the procedural direction could have been addressed or excused, and...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal in relation to Ground 3 refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal in relation to Ground 3 refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']