Leahy v Watermin Drillers Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 281
The appeal panel found that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice, no error in the Tribunal preferring the respondent's oral evidence over the appellant’s, no procedural unfairness as the appellant had opportunity to procure expert evidence but did not, and no evidence of bias; leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.
- Parties
- Appellant: Louis Leahy; Respondent: Watermin Drillers Pty Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 September 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Determination of Appeal Against Tribunal Decision
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Bias, Contract Variation, Evidence, Expert Evidence, Natural Justice
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Louis Leahy
Appellant
Watermin Drillers Pty Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Determination of Appeal Against Tribunal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the Tribunal's decision
- 2 Whether Tribunal erred in preferring oral evidence of contractor over appellant's evidence
- 3 Whether appellant was denied natural justice due to lack of waterflow evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal panel found that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice, no error in the Tribunal preferring the respondent's oral evidence over the appellant’s, no procedural unfairness as the appellant had opportunity to procure expert evidence but did not, and no evidence of bias; leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to Appeal is refused.
- The Appeal is dismissed.
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