Robust Builders Pty Ltd v Bhardwaj [2020] NSWCATAP 24

Robust Builders Pty Ltd v Bhardwaj [2020] NSWCATAP 24

The appeal was dismissed because the grounds concerning the first contract and complying development certificate were not raised at first instance and could not be introduced on appeal without injustice to the owners, who had conducted the case on a different evidentiary footing. In any event, the first contract contemplated later supply of plans and specifications and the parties intended to be bound despite the plans and specifications not being finalised. The challenges to the third contract were challenges to factual and credibility findings that were open to the Tribunal, including findings that the builder's evidence was unreliable, that the document was blank when signed, and that...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Concerning a Home Building Dispute / Appeal Panel From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division Dated 24 September 2019
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'question of Law' 'leave to Appeal' 'residential Building Contract' 'statutory Warranty' 'scope of Works' 'contract Formation' 'weight of Evidence' 'credibility Findings']
['home Building' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'contract Law'] ['internal Appeal' 'question of Law' 'leave to Appeal' 'residential Building Contract' 'statutory Warranty' 'scope of Works' 'contract Formation' 'weight of Evidence' 'credibility Findings']

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 Concerning a Home Building Dispute / Appeal Panel From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division Dated 24 September 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that plans and specifications referred to in the complying development certificate were contract documents forming the scope of works under the first contract.' 'Whether the appellant should be permitted to raise on appeal grounds not raised at first instance concerning incorporation of the complying development certificate and alleged uncertainty or invalidity of the first contract.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the third contract and related documents were not binding on the owners.' 'Whether findings that the third contract was blank when signed and that the contract price was altered were against the weight of evidence.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in relation to alleged contraventions of s 7(2)(c) and s 7(2)(d) of the HBA and the restriction in s 10.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the grounds concerning the first contract and complying development certificate were not raised at first instance and could not be introduced on appeal without injustice to the owners, who had conducted the case on a different evidentiary footing. In any event, the first contract contemplated later supply of plans and specifications and the parties intended to be bound despite the plans and specifications not being finalised. The challenges to the third contract were challenges to factual and credibility findings that were open to the Tribunal, including findings that the builder's evidence was unreliable, that the document was blank when signed, and that...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']