Lal v Jardak Construction Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 224

Lal v Jardak Construction Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 224

The appeal failed because the primary decision was based on objective factual findings: the builder performed as required by contract, and procedural fairness was not denied. The additional grounds raised by the appellants were not supported by the transcript or conduct of the proceedings. The Tribunal was not persuaded by arguments of lack of fairness or inadequate guidance for self-represented parties.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'self Represented Litigants' 'costs' 'tribunal Procedure']
['home Building' 'administrative Law'] ['procedural Fairness' 'self Represented Litigants' 'costs' 'tribunal Procedure']

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

Appeal / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether procedural fairness was denied to the appellants, particularly in the rejection of alternative plans evidence' 'Whether the Tribunal adequately discharged its duties to self-represented litigants' 'Whether there was error in findings regarding compliance with contract and variations']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary decision was based on objective factual findings: the builder performed as required by contract, and procedural fairness was not denied. The additional grounds raised by the appellants were not supported by the transcript or conduct of the proceedings. The Tribunal was not persuaded by arguments of lack of fairness or inadequate guidance for self-represented parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "Order that the appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed on the indemnity basis."]