Pregard Pty Ltd v Ballinger [2021] NSWCATAP 321

Pregard Pty Ltd v Ballinger [2021] NSWCATAP 321

The Appeal Panel found that the Tribunal did not err in its discretionary decision regarding costs: the Appellant was only partly successful and had acted unreasonably in significantly inflating and then abandoning large parts of its claim on the eve of hearing, which the Tribunal was entitled to take into account. The Tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence and the discretion was not shown to have miscarried. No error justifying appellate intervention or grant of leave to appeal was established.

Parties
Appellant: Pregard Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Bradley Ballinger; Second Respondent: Kristi Ballinger
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision Following Costs Order in Tribunal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Home Building Costs, Appeal, Discretion in Costs Orders, Awarding of Costs in Tribunal Proceedings
Costs Home Building Costs Appeal Discretion in Costs Orders Awarding of Costs in Tribunal Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pregard Pty Ltd

Appellant

Bradley Ballinger

First Respondent

Kristi Ballinger

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision Following Costs Order in Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Tribunal err in its exercise of discretion in awarding costs between the parties?
  2. 2 Were any errors of law made justifying appellate intervention regarding costs?
  3. 3 Should leave to appeal be granted?

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel found that the Tribunal did not err in its discretionary decision regarding costs: the Appellant was only partly successful and had acted unreasonably in significantly inflating and then abandoning large parts of its claim on the eve of hearing, which the Tribunal was entitled to take into account. The Tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence and the discretion was not shown to have miscarried. No error justifying appellate intervention or grant of leave to appeal was established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused;
  • The appeal is dismissed;