MGB Building Pty Ltd v Hammond [2016] NSWCATAP 92

MGB Building Pty Ltd v Hammond [2016] NSWCATAP 92

The evidence was sufficient to support the Tribunal's findings that waterproofing and tiling performed by Mr Jones were within the builders' responsibility, that the builders owed statutory warranties for that work, and that the asserted arrangement or direct payments to Mr Jones did not establish a separate contract excluding the builders' liability. The Tribunal adequately addressed the expert evidence and quantum issues, no denial of natural justice was substantiated in relation to the repayment or damages characterisation, and no error or substantial miscarriage of justice was shown to justify leave to appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Home Building Applications / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From the 11 August 2015 Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; no costs order made.
Legal Topics
['defective Residential Building Work' 'waterproofing Defects' 'statutory Warranties' 'leave to Appeal' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'natural Justice' 'costs']
['home Building' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['defective Residential Building Work' 'waterproofing Defects' 'statutory Warranties' 'leave to Appeal' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'natural Justice' 'costs']

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 From Consumer and Commercial Division Home Building Applications / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From the 11 August 2015 Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that waterproofing carried out by Mr Jones was within the builders' responsibility and attracted statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to make sufficient findings, consider relevant evidence, or give adequate reasons on liability, causation and quantum for the pool deck, north elevation water ingress and sub-floor ventilation or stormwater ingress items.' "Whether direct payments to Mr Jones, an arrangement with Mr Jones, or the earlier decision to sue Mr Jones established a contract between the homeowners and Mr Jones excluding the builders' liability." "Whether the builders were denied natural justice because part of the homeowners' claim was described as repayment rather than damages." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted under cl 12 of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'Whether special circumstances warranted a costs order on the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was sufficient to support the Tribunal's findings that waterproofing and tiling performed by Mr Jones were within the builders' responsibility, that the builders owed statutory warranties for that work, and that the asserted arrangement or direct payments to Mr Jones did not establish a separate contract excluding the builders' liability. The Tribunal adequately addressed the expert evidence and quantum issues, no denial of natural justice was substantiated in relation to the repayment or damages characterisation, and no error or substantial miscarriage of justice was shown to justify leave to appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; no costs order made.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']