Leisure Brothers Pty Ltd v Smith [2017] NSWCATAP 11

Leisure Brothers Pty Ltd v Smith [2017] NSWCATAP 11

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant had ample opportunity to comply with directions and provide evidence, including expert reports, but failed to do so. The Tribunal acted reasonably in refusing an adjournment and relied on uncontradicted expert evidence and quotations. There was sufficient evidentiary basis for the damages award and no procedural unfairness. Leave to appeal on the basis of new evidence was refused as the evidence could have been reasonably obtained at the original hearing.

Parties
Appellant: Leisure Brothers Pty Ltd; Respondent: Aaron Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Decision
Outcome
leave to appeal refused, appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Failure to Comply With Directions, Adjournment of Hearing, Sufficiency of Evidence, Admission of New Evidence on Appeal
Procedure Evidence Building and Construction Failure to Comply With Directions Adjournment of Hearing Sufficiency of Evidence Admission of New Evidence on Appeal

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leisure Brothers Pty Ltd

Appellant

Aaron Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing an adjournment to allow the appellant to provide expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in relying on a quotation as evidence for damages
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to apply the correct burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant had ample opportunity to comply with directions and provide evidence, including expert reports, but failed to do so. The Tribunal acted reasonably in refusing an adjournment and relied on uncontradicted expert evidence and quotations. There was sufficient evidentiary basis for the damages award and no procedural unfairness. Leave to appeal on the basis of new evidence was refused as the evidence could have been reasonably obtained at the original hearing.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused, appeal dismissed

Orders

  • leave to appeal is refused
  • the appeal is dismissed