Anderson v J W Lanfranchi Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 195

Anderson v J W Lanfranchi Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 195

The Appeal Panel allowed the appeal because the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for its conclusion that the contractual scope of works was limited to the 25 word Schedule 4 description. The Owners' schedule of works R9 and the Builder's amendments R11 appeared to have been supplied and executed with the contract and contained conflicting descriptions of the scope of works. The Tribunal did not adequately explain whether one, both or neither formed part of the contract, and did not refer to the Owners' schedule of works R9, which was critical evidence on a central issue. That failure amounted to an error of law requiring the Tribunal's orders to be set aside and the matters...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Against a Consumer and Commercial Division Home Building Decision / Appeal Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Tribunal orders set aside; matters remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal; respondent's costs application refused.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'error of Law' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'scope of Works' 'residential Building Contract' 'failure to Consider Critical Evidence' 'costs in NCAT Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'home Building' 'contract Law' 'costs'] ['internal Appeal' 'error of Law' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'scope of Works' 'residential Building Contract' 'failure to Consider Critical Evidence' 'costs in NCAT Proceedings']

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 Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Against a Consumer and Commercial Division Home Building Decision / Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal made an error of law by failing to provide proper or adequate reasons for finding that the scope of works was confined to the 25 word description in Schedule 4 of the contract.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to refer to or consider critical evidence concerning the Owners' schedule of works R9 and the Builder's amendments R11." 'Whether the matter should be remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.' 'Whether the respondent should receive a costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel allowed the appeal because the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for its conclusion that the contractual scope of works was limited to the 25 word Schedule 4 description. The Owners' schedule of works R9 and the Builder's amendments R11 appeared to have been supplied and executed with the contract and contained conflicting descriptions of the scope of works. The Tribunal did not adequately explain whether one, both or neither formed part of the contract, and did not refer to the Owners' schedule of works R9, which was critical evidence on a central issue. That failure amounted to an error of law requiring the Tribunal's orders to be set aside and the matters...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Tribunal orders set aside; matters remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal; respondent's costs application refused.

Orders

  • ['Allow the Appeal.' 'Set aside the orders of the Tribunal of 2 May 2018 in HB17/40792 & HB1742496.' 'Remit the matters for re-hearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.' "The application that the appellants pay the respondent's costs is refused."]