Inventbuild Pty Ltd v Tulemis [2024] NSWCATAP 49

Inventbuild Pty Ltd v Tulemis [2024] NSWCATAP 49

Inventbuild did not establish any denial of procedural fairness or other basis for setting aside the consent money order. The evidence showed that settlement negotiations were informal, the Tribunal Member alerted both parties to the risks of proceeding to a hearing, both parties knew a hearing would occur if they did not settle, and there was no evidence of illegitimate pressure, misleading conduct, misunderstanding, mistake, or any circumstance identified in McDonald that would vitiate the agreement. The making of the consent orders was not shown to be unfair, inequitable, or against the weight of evidence, so leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Concerning Consent Money and Work Orders in a Building Work Dispute / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal on a Question of Law
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeals' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'consent Orders' 'setting Aside Consent Orders' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'building and Construction' 'consumer and Commercial Law'] ['internal Appeals' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'consent Orders' 'setting Aside Consent Orders' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']

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 Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Concerning Consent Money and Work Orders in a Building Work Dispute / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal on a Question of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness to Inventbuild in making the money order and thereby made an error of law.' 'Whether Inventbuild should be granted leave to appeal against the money order and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed and the money order set aside.']

Ratio Decidendi

Inventbuild did not establish any denial of procedural fairness or other basis for setting aside the consent money order. The evidence showed that settlement negotiations were informal, the Tribunal Member alerted both parties to the risks of proceeding to a hearing, both parties knew a hearing would occur if they did not settle, and there was no evidence of illegitimate pressure, misleading conduct, misunderstanding, mistake, or any circumstance identified in McDonald that would vitiate the agreement. The making of the consent orders was not shown to be unfair, inequitable, or against the weight of evidence, so leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is otherwise dismissed.']