Ramzy & Anor v CTTT & 2 Ors [2005] NSWSC 48

Ramzy & Anor v CTTT & 2 Ors [2005] NSWSC 48

The plaintiffs did not establish any error of law in the Tribunal's decisions. The Tribunal gave sufficient reasons concerning Mr Nasralla's joinder and the correction of the orders; the contractual interest award was discretionary and open on the evidence; the credits and defective work figures had been agreed and a new reduction argument could not be raised on appeal; the patio roof issue involved a factual finding that the variation was agreed; the window damages decision was discretionary and adequately reasoned; and the plaintiffs had an opportunity to make costs submissions but did not do so.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal to the Supreme Court of New South Wales From Decisions of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal on Questions of Law / Appeal Dismissed; Tribunal Decisions Affirmed
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal decisions are affirmed; the second amended summons is dismissed; the plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'question of Law' 'jurisdiction of Tribunal' 'natural Justice' 'reasons for Decision' 'interest Under Building Contract' 'defective Building Work' 'measure of Damages for Rectification' 'costs Discretion']
['administrative Law' 'consumer and Tenancy Tribunal Proceedings' 'building and Construction' 'damages' 'costs'] ['appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'question of Law' 'jurisdiction of Tribunal' 'natural Justice' 'reasons for Decision' 'interest Under Building Contract' 'defective Building Work' 'measure of Damages for Rectification' 'costs Discretion']

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 to the Supreme Court of New South Wales From Decisions of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal on Questions of Law / Appeal Dismissed; Tribunal Decisions Affirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred by making an order in favour of Mr Nasralla and by failing to give sufficient reasons for doing so.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding interest from 19 December 1999 at 22.32%.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to reduce the amount owing to the builder for alleged substantial non-performance.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in relation to the deleted patio roof and the measure of damages for the non-conforming windows.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding costs without further notice, directions or hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs did not establish any error of law in the Tribunal's decisions. The Tribunal gave sufficient reasons concerning Mr Nasralla's joinder and the correction of the orders; the contractual interest award was discretionary and open on the evidence; the credits and defective work figures had been agreed and a new reduction argument could not be raised on appeal; the patio roof issue involved a factual finding that the variation was agreed; the window damages decision was discretionary and adequately reasoned; and the plaintiffs had an opportunity to make costs submissions but did not do so.

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal decisions are affirmed; the second amended summons is dismissed; the plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The decisions of Tribunal Member Mallam dated 19 January 2004, 8 April 2004 and 16 May 2004 are affirmed.' 'The second amended summons is dismissed.' "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed."]