Wallace v Curry & 2 Ors [2007] NSWSC 71

Wallace v Curry & 2 Ors [2007] NSWSC 71

The Tribunal made findings open on the evidence that the oral agreement required Mr Wallace to cut the house, transport it, set it on piers and rejoin it, and that he breached the agreement by causing damage and failing to perform the work in a proper and workmanlike manner. The damages assessment was open to the Tribunal and disclosed no error of law. Mr Wallace had an adequate opportunity to prepare and present his case, so there was no denial of procedural fairness. However, the Tribunal's second order, allowing Mr Wallace to remove the house once payment had been made to Ms Curry and Mr McDonald, imposed a significant burden and should be set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Decision and Claim for Certiorari / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Order (2) of the Tribunal set aside; Order (1) affirmed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['appeal on Question of Law' 'certiorari' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdiction of Tribunal' 'oral Contract' 'damages for Relocation of House']
['administrative Law' 'consumer and Tenancy Tribunal Law' 'contract Law'] ['appeal on Question of Law' 'certiorari' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdiction of Tribunal' 'oral Contract' 'damages for Relocation of House']

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 From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Decision and Claim for Certiorari / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in law in identifying the terms of the oral contract for relocation of the house.' 'Whether the Tribunal decided the matter on evidence or made unsupported findings about damage and reconstruction of the house.' 'Whether the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness in the Tribunal.' 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order that the plaintiff could remove the house once payment had been made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal made findings open on the evidence that the oral agreement required Mr Wallace to cut the house, transport it, set it on piers and rejoin it, and that he breached the agreement by causing damage and failing to perform the work in a proper and workmanlike manner. The damages assessment was open to the Tribunal and disclosed no error of law. Mr Wallace had an adequate opportunity to prepare and present his case, so there was no denial of procedural fairness. However, the Tribunal's second order, allowing Mr Wallace to remove the house once payment had been made to Ms Curry and Mr McDonald, imposed a significant burden and should be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Order (2) of the Tribunal set aside; Order (1) affirmed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed in part.' 'Order (2) made by Tribunal Member Halliday on 26 October 2005 is set aside.' 'Order (1) made by Tribunal Member Halliday on 26 October 2005 is affirmed.' 'Costs are reserved.']