Strangas & Son Building Contractors Pty Ltd v Lim [2012] NSWSC 1320

Strangas & Son Building Contractors Pty Ltd v Lim [2012] NSWSC 1320

There was no jurisdictional error, constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, or denial of procedural fairness shown in the Tribunal's judgment. Any alleged error related to findings of fact or law was not sufficient to enliven the Court's jurisdiction in light of the privative provision in s 65 of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001. The application was so lacking in merit as to warrant summary dismissal.

Parties
Plaintiff: Strangas & Son Building Contractors Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Gay Lim; Second Defendant: Kuong Ming Alex Ting; Third Defendant: The Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (summons) / Decision on Notice of Motion to Dismiss
Outcome
Summons and Amended Summons dismissed; Plaintiff to pay First and Second Defendants' costs
Legal Topics
Certiorari, Jurisdictional Error, Procedural Fairness, Summary Dismissal, Unjust Enrichment
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Certiorari Jurisdictional Error Procedural Fairness Summary Dismissal Unjust Enrichment

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Strangas & Son Building Contractors Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Gay Lim

First Defendant

Kuong Ming Alex Ting

Second Defendant

The Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (summons) / Decision on Notice of Motion to Dismiss

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal made a jurisdictional error or denied procedural fairness justifying certiorari
  2. 2 Whether error of law (no evidence finding) or constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction was shown
  3. 3 Whether a declaration for unjust enrichment can be granted in face of privative provision

Ratio Decidendi

There was no jurisdictional error, constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, or denial of procedural fairness shown in the Tribunal's judgment. Any alleged error related to findings of fact or law was not sufficient to enliven the Court's jurisdiction in light of the privative provision in s 65 of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001. The application was so lacking in merit as to warrant summary dismissal.

Court Disposition

Summons and Amended Summons dismissed; Plaintiff to pay First and Second Defendants' costs

Orders

  • The Summons and the Amended Summons are dismissed.
  • The Plaintiff is to pay the First and Second Defendants' costs of the proceedings.