Dubow v Liddell [2023] NSWCATAP 93

Dubow v Liddell [2023] NSWCATAP 93

Although the Tribunal erred in treating proof of payment as a major component of Ms Dubow's breach of contract claim, that error did not affect the result. The appeal failed because the evidence was insufficient to prove with the required precision the contract or contracts, the scope of works, and the person responsible for each obligation, and because the transcript did not establish any denial of procedural fairness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Dismissal of Homeowner's Claims Under the Home Building Act 1989 (nsw) for Alleged Faulty and Incomplete Building Works. / Appeal Panel of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales; Appeal Heard on 21 March 2023 and Dismissed on 31 March 2023.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['oral Contract Formation' 'offer and Acceptance' 'terms and Scope of Works' 'sufficiency of Evidence' 'procedural Fairness' 'excessive Intervention' 'tribunal Practice and Procedure']
['contracts' 'civil Procedure' 'home Building'] ['oral Contract Formation' 'offer and Acceptance' 'terms and Scope of Works' 'sufficiency of Evidence' 'procedural Fairness' 'excessive Intervention' 'tribunal Practice and Procedure']

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 Dismissal of Homeowner's Claims Under the Home Building Act 1989 (nsw) for Alleged Faulty and Incomplete Building Works. / Appeal Panel of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales; Appeal Heard on 21 March 2023 and Dismissed on 31 March 2023.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that Ms Dubow failed to prove the contract, the scope of works and payment.' 'Whether the evidence established a contract with Terry Liddell or Timothy Ticknell, and what work each was obliged to perform.' "Whether Ms Dubow was denied procedural fairness by the Tribunal Member's interventions, by alleged limits on cross-examination, by not reading evidence onto the record, or by not identifying the cause of action and matters in contention before reasons." "Whether the Tribunal's error in treating proof of payment as relevant affected the result of the proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Tribunal erred in treating proof of payment as a major component of Ms Dubow's breach of contract claim, that error did not affect the result. The appeal failed because the evidence was insufficient to prove with the required precision the contract or contracts, the scope of works, and the person responsible for each obligation, and because the transcript did not establish any denial of procedural fairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted for the first respondent to be represented by Luke Clarke, Solicitor.' 'Appeal dismissed.']