Killick v McPherson [2009] NSWDC 134
The District Court found the CTTT did not err in law regarding findings of deceit, repudiation, and damages, and that the Tribunal's delay and adequacy of reasons, given the legislative scheme, did not amount to procedural unfairness; thus, the appeal failed except for a minor adjustment to damages calculation.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 June 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed subject to minor adjustment; damages amount altered.
- Legal Topics
- ['procedural Fairness' 'repudiation' 'deceit' 'damages' 'remoteness of Damages' 'breach of Contract']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal erred in law regarding procedural fairness' 'Whether the Tribunal correctly found deceit and assessed damages in tort' 'Whether the Tribunal correctly found repudiation and assessed damages in contract' "Whether the Tribunal's delay and adequacy of reasons amounted to procedural unfairness"]
Ratio Decidendi
The District Court found the CTTT did not err in law regarding findings of deceit, repudiation, and damages, and that the Tribunal's delay and adequacy of reasons, given the legislative scheme, did not amount to procedural unfairness; thus, the appeal failed except for a minor adjustment to damages calculation.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed subject to minor adjustment; damages amount altered.
Orders
- ['Appellant ordered to pay $155,090.90 to respondent.' "Appellant to pay respondent's costs of appeal." 'Order of the Tribunal as to costs confirmed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment