11 Jul 2022
The court found the plaintiff's evidence credible and the defendants' evidence inconsistent and implausible, concluded the defendants breached their duty to maintain the premises, accepted that falling concrete caused the injuries and therefore held the defendants liable for the agreed damages and costs.
15 Sept 2016
The Tribunal correctly found the respondents failed to provide complete and necessary materials to substantiate a retrospective application, the IO was entitled to treat a post-breach request differently and to refuse retrospective consent on legitimate safety grounds, and given deliberate installation on a building with known defects a mandatory injunction was justified; there was no arguable error of law and leave to appeal was refused.
20 Mar 2006
Leave to appeal was refused because the judge's factual findings, supported by expert evidence, were not plainly wrong and the defendant had no real prospect of success on appeal; the damages of $50,000 adequately compensated the security risk and remedial measures and were not shown to be manifestly inadequate.