Love v CTTT & Anor [2007] NSWSC 596
The appeal failed because the only issue litigated was defects and the Tribunal's determination was based on the plaintiff’s failure to discharge the onus of proof on that issue. The alleged errors of law were either immaterial or outside the scope allowed by section 67 of the Act. There was no satisfactory explanation for delay in appealing, and no merit in the appeal, so an extension of time was not granted.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 June 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Application for Extension of Time
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['residential Building Work' 'contractual Changes' 'appeal Procedure' 'extension of Time' 'onus of Proof']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred on a pure question of law under section 67 of the Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW)' 'Whether findings were made without supporting evidence' 'Whether there was sufficient basis to extend time for appeal']
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal failed because the only issue litigated was defects and the Tribunal's determination was based on the plaintiff’s failure to discharge the onus of proof on that issue. The alleged errors of law were either immaterial or outside the scope allowed by section 67 of the Act. There was no satisfactory explanation for delay in appealing, and no merit in the appeal, so an extension of time was not granted.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['The appeal fails.' 'The proceedings are dismissed.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment