Bui v DB Homes Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 218

Bui v DB Homes Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 218

The Tribunal refused the extension of time and leave to appeal, finding that the appellants failed to satisfactorily explain the lengthy delay, did not establish entitlement to loss of rental income or that such loss was in contemplation of the parties, and that the methodology for assessing damages and rejecting new evidence was appropriate. No substantial miscarriage of justice justifying leave was demonstrated.

Parties
Appellant: Huy Bui; Appellant: Suzanne Bui; Respondent: DB Homes Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; extension of time and leave refused
Legal Topics
Appeal – Whether Question of Law, Leave to Appeal – Extension of Time, Assessment of Damages, Damages for Delay and Defective Work, Evidence – New Evidence on Appeal
Building and Construction Law Contract Law Administrative Law Appeal – Whether Question of Law Leave to Appeal – Extension of Time Assessment of Damages Damages for Delay and Defective Work Evidence – New Evidence on Appeal

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 5 Authorities cited 42 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Huy Bui

Appellant

Suzanne Bui

Appellant

DB Homes Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted on questions of fact
  3. 3 Whether loss of rental income was in the contemplation of the parties and recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused the extension of time and leave to appeal, finding that the appellants failed to satisfactorily explain the lengthy delay, did not establish entitlement to loss of rental income or that such loss was in contemplation of the parties, and that the methodology for assessing damages and rejecting new evidence was appropriate. No substantial miscarriage of justice justifying leave was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; extension of time and leave refused

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal refused.
  • Leave to appeal refused.