KALOKERINOS & ANOR v HIA INSURANCE SERVICES P/L & ANOR [2004] NSWCA 312

KALOKERINOS & ANOR v HIA INSURANCE SERVICES P/L & ANOR [2004] NSWCA 312

The grounds of appeal did not identify decisions with respect to a matter of law by the Tribunal or Master as required for an appeal under s.67 of the CTTT Act. All matters raised were questions of fact or application of law to facts, which are not appealable under the statutory scheme. Therefore, the appeal was incompetent and properly struck out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Strike Out Appeal in NSW Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal struck out as incompetent.
Legal Topics
['limited Rights of Appeal' 'scope of Appeal on Matters of Law Under CTTT Act S.67' 'interpretation of Home Building Act 1989' 'procedure for Striking Out Incompetent Appeals']
['administrative Law' 'building and Construction Law'] ['limited Rights of Appeal' 'scope of Appeal on Matters of Law Under CTTT Act S.67' 'interpretation of Home Building Act 1989' 'procedure for Striking Out Incompetent Appeals']

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 / Application to Strike Out Appeal in NSW Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether grounds of appeal raised questions with respect to a matter of law under s.67 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001' 'Whether acceptance by builder of repudiation constituted enforcement of building contract within s.10 of Home Building Act 1989' "Whether Tribunal/Master's findings involved appealable errors of law or findings of fact not open to appeal"]

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds of appeal did not identify decisions with respect to a matter of law by the Tribunal or Master as required for an appeal under s.67 of the CTTT Act. All matters raised were questions of fact or application of law to facts, which are not appealable under the statutory scheme. Therefore, the appeal was incompetent and properly struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out as incompetent.

Orders

  • ['Time for appeal from the orders of Master Harrison of 4 November 2003 extended up to and including 2 December 2003.' "Time for service of first respondent's Notice of Motion of 23 April 2004 extended up to and including 27 April 2004." 'Appeal struck out as incompetent upon first respondent’s Notice of Motion.'...