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.
Parties
Mark MacDonald
Appellant
Richard Belfield
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tribunal's decision was unfair and inequitable or against the weight of evidence
- 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
- 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.
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