Boman-Peters and Hart v Southern Tablelands Rural Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 235

Boman-Peters and Hart v Southern Tablelands Rural Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 235

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellants did not establish any question of law or any basis under cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). Although the Tribunal had omitted two discrete minor defects from its rectification orders, the appellants had not quantified those...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Concerning a Consumer Claim About Rural Fencing Works / Appeal Panel; Leave to Appeal Sought
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['ncat Internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'consumer Guarantees' 'defective and Incomplete Rural Fencing Works' 'photographic Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'new Evidence on Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']
['consumer Law' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'contract Law'] ['ncat Internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'consumer Guarantees' 'defective and Incomplete Rural Fencing Works' 'photographic Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'new Evidence on Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']

Source-derived case record

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 From Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Concerning a Consumer Claim About Rural Fencing Works / Appeal Panel; Leave to Appeal Sought

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal's decision was not fair and equitable because findings of defective work were not reflected in rectification orders." 'Whether the Tribunal should have made further findings about the scope of the contract works and implied obligations of the respondent as a professional fencing contractor.' 'Whether the Tribunal should have admitted a rectification quote from an unidentified fencing contractor.' 'Whether the decision was against the weight of the evidence, including photographic evidence about star-picket spacing, failed end assemblies and an allegedly failed electric fence.' 'Whether the appellants should be permitted to rely on new expert evidence from Regional Fencing Solutions dated 8 March 2022.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted under cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellants did not establish any question of law or any basis under cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). Although the Tribunal had omitted two discrete minor defects from its rectification orders, the appellants had not quantified those items and remittal would be disproportionate. The Tribunal was entitled to exclude the anonymous quote on procedural fairness grounds, its factual findings were not shown to be against the weight of the evidence, the absence of a transcript or sound recording prevented review of disputed oral evidence, and the proposed expert evidence was not shown objectively to have been...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']