MacDonald v. Belfield [2015] NSWCATAP 132

MacDonald v. Belfield [2015] NSWCATAP 132

Leave to appeal was refused because the Tribunal was entitled to prefer the evidence of the respondent and his expert witness that the goods were not of acceptable quality or fit for purpose, and there was no substantial miscarriage of justice nor error in the Tribunal's findings or evaluation of the evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Mark MacDonald; Respondent: Richard Belfield
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; time to file appeal extended
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Consumer Guarantees, Supply of Goods and Services, Evaluation of Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark MacDonald

Appellant

Richard Belfield

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's decision was unfair and inequitable or against the weight of evidence
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Tribunal was entitled to prefer the evidence of the respondent and his expert witness that the goods were not of acceptable quality or fit for purpose, and there was no substantial miscarriage of justice nor error in the Tribunal's findings or evaluation of the evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; time to file appeal extended

Orders

  • The time for filing the appeal is extended up to and including 17 December 2014.
  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.