Mayhew v Gittany [2023] NSWCATAP 156

Mayhew v Gittany [2023] NSWCATAP 156

The Tribunal found that the appellant selected the location and required the respondents to construct the causeway at that site despite advice to the contrary; as such, the appellant did not rely on the respondents' skill or judgment. The goods and services supplied were of suitable quality, and the work was performed with due care and skill. As a result, the statutory guarantees as to fitness for purpose under s 61 of the Australian Consumer Law did not apply, and there was no failure under s 60. No error of law or grounds for leave to appeal were established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['obligations of Supplier' 'fitness for Purpose' 'due Care and Skill' 'reliance on Supplier Judgment']
['contract Law' 'consumer Law'] ['obligations of Supplier' 'fitness for Purpose' 'due Care and Skill' 'reliance on Supplier Judgment']

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 / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents failed to supply services with due care and skill under s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW)' 'Whether the services were fit for the purpose required by the appellant under s 61 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW)' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the appellant did not rely on the skill or judgment of the respondents']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the appellant selected the location and required the respondents to construct the causeway at that site despite advice to the contrary; as such, the appellant did not rely on the respondents' skill or judgment. The goods and services supplied were of suitable quality, and the work was performed with due care and skill. As a result, the statutory guarantees as to fitness for purpose under s 61 of the Australian Consumer Law did not apply, and there was no failure under s 60. No error of law or grounds for leave to appeal were established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']