MS Noun Construction Pty Ltd v Baker [2022] NSWCATAP 251

MS Noun Construction Pty Ltd v Baker [2022] NSWCATAP 251

The appellant did not establish any error of law or any ground warranting leave to appeal. The finding that the roof was incapable of repair was open on the expert evidence accepted by the Tribunal, there was no indication that alleged later repairs were raised or supported at first instance and they conflicted with the expert view that replacement was required, and one expert report and a quotation for replacement were sufficient in the absence of contrary evidence or submissions from the appellant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From the Consumer and Commercial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'question of Law' 'leave to Appeal' 'defective Roof Works' 'expert Evidence' 'money Order']
['civil and Administrative Law' 'consumer and Commercial Law' 'home Building Dispute'] ['internal Appeal' 'question of Law' 'leave to Appeal' 'defective Roof Works' 'expert Evidence' 'money Order']

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

Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From the Consumer and Commercial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the roof was not repairable.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in not accepting that the roof was repaired after the expert report was prepared.' 'Whether the respondent was required to provide another report about the damage or cost of rectification.' 'Whether any error of law or ground requiring leave to appeal was demonstrated.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not establish any error of law or any ground warranting leave to appeal. The finding that the roof was incapable of repair was open on the expert evidence accepted by the Tribunal, there was no indication that alleged later repairs were raised or supported at first instance and they conflicted with the expert view that replacement was required, and one expert report and a quotation for replacement were sufficient in the absence of contrary evidence or submissions from the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']