Alam v Rahman [2024] NSWCATAP 144

Alam v Rahman [2024] NSWCATAP 144

The Tribunal’s application as filed did not amend or seek an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limit, and the Tribunal properly identified its jurisdiction; its reasons, as recorded, met the minimum statutory requirement, and the refusal to adjourn was a proper exercise of discretion given the appellant’s lack of explanation and prejudice to respondents. Accordingly, no error of law nor ground for leave to appeal was established.

Parties
Appellant: Mohammed Shafiul Alam; First Respondent: Md Mustafijur Rahman; Second Respondent: Sayeeda Rahman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Determination of Appeal and Application for Leave
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Tribunal Jurisdiction, Procedural Fairness, Adequacy of Reasons, Appeals in Home Building Claims
Building and Construction Law Civil Procedure Tribunal Jurisdiction Procedural Fairness Adequacy of Reasons Appeals in Home Building Claims

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Shafiul Alam

Appellant

Md Mustafijur Rahman

First Respondent

Sayeeda Rahman

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Determination of Appeal and Application for Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction where the claim allegedly exceeded the monetary limit under s 48K Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was denied by refusal of adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal’s application as filed did not amend or seek an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limit, and the Tribunal properly identified its jurisdiction; its reasons, as recorded, met the minimum statutory requirement, and the refusal to adjourn was a proper exercise of discretion given the appellant’s lack of explanation and prejudice to respondents. Accordingly, no error of law nor ground for leave to appeal was established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Appeal dismissed.