Yu trading as Ebenesel Landscapes v Kong & Cha [2024] NSWCATAP 76
The Appeal Panel found there was no error on a question of law established in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the cash payment, variations, or refusal to make a work order. The Tribunal's conclusions were not unfair, not against the weight of the evidence, and no substantial miscarriage of justice was...
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 May 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Decision on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['appeals' 'deposits' 'building Contracts' 'variations' 'rectification of Defective Work']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in finding the owners paid $6,594 to the builder on the basis of an ATM receipt' "Whether the Tribunal erred in calculating variations and dismissing the builder's claim for additional payment" 'Whether the Tribunal should have made a work order for rectification under s48MA of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)']
Ratio Decidendi
The Appeal Panel found there was no error on a question of law established in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the cash payment, variations, or refusal to make a work order. The Tribunal's conclusions were not unfair, not against the weight of the evidence, and no substantial miscarriage of justice was demonstrated. The appeal was dismissed as no grounds justified interference.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Time for filing the Notice of Appeal is extended to 4 October 2023.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']
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