Hoare v Taylormade Residential Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1359

Hoare v Taylormade Residential Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1359

Leave to appeal is refused because the applicants failed to identify a question of law as required under s 83 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW); the Appeal Panel did not err in its application of rule 38(2)(b), Malachite, special circumstances, or in the exercise of costs discretion. The legal threshold for costs orders under r 38(2)(b) was not met, and there was no special circumstances found warranting costs; the Tribunal’s reasoning did not reveal a question of law justifying a grant of leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From NCAT Appeal Panel Decision to Supreme Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['ncat Appeals' 'costs Orders' 'rule 38(2)(b)' 'special Circumstances' 'home Building Act' 'consent Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'building and Construction Law'] ['ncat Appeals' 'costs Orders' 'rule 38(2)(b)' 'special Circumstances' 'home Building Act' 'consent Orders']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal From NCAT Appeal Panel Decision to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted on questions of law arising from the NCAT Appeal Panel’s costs decision' 'Whether rule 38(2)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2013 (NSW) applied to allow a costs order' 'Whether special circumstances existed under s 60(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) to warrant a costs order' "Whether the homeowners' refusal to permit rectification was relevant disentitling conduct"]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is refused because the applicants failed to identify a question of law as required under s 83 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW); the Appeal Panel did not err in its application of rule 38(2)(b), Malachite, special circumstances, or in the exercise of costs discretion. The legal threshold for costs orders under r 38(2)(b) was not met, and there was no special circumstances found warranting costs; the Tribunal’s reasoning did not reveal a question of law justifying a grant of leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' "The plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the appeal."]