Tannous v Leedon [2017] NSWCATAP 158

Tannous v Leedon [2017] NSWCATAP 158

Leave to appeal was refused because Mr Tannous failed to provide any adequate explanation or supporting evidence for his absence or for delay in making applications. There was no identified error of law, no substantial miscarriage of justice, and all relevant evidence had been considered by the Tribunal. The findings of overpayment and defective works were properly supported by the evidence, and no basis existed for disturbing the original order.

Parties
Appellant: Jacques Tannous; Respondent: Joseph Leedon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Decision of Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; original order for payment confirmed
Legal Topics
Home Building Contract Disputes, Repudiation of Contract, Damages for Defective and Incomplete Works, Leave to Appeal in Tribunal Proceedings, Overpayment in Contractual Context
Consumer Law Building and Construction Law Tribunal Procedure Home Building Contract Disputes Repudiation of Contract Damages for Defective and Incomplete Works Leave to Appeal in Tribunal Proceedings Overpayment in Contractual Context

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacques Tannous

Appellant

Joseph Leedon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Decision of Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal against the Tribunal's decision should be granted
  2. 2 Whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice due to absence at hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's findings on overpayment and damages were justified

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because Mr Tannous failed to provide any adequate explanation or supporting evidence for his absence or for delay in making applications. There was no identified error of law, no substantial miscarriage of justice, and all relevant evidence had been considered by the Tribunal. The findings of overpayment and defective works were properly supported by the evidence, and no basis existed for disturbing the original order.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; original order for payment confirmed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Appeal dismissed.