Magill v Dilworth [2015] NSWCATAP 92

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Magill v Dilworth [2015] NSWCATAP 92 Hearing dates: 24 March 2015 Date of orders: 20 May 2015 Decision date: 20 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: A Coleman SC, Senior Member P H Molony, Senior Member Decision: 1. Leave to appeal refused. 2. The appeal is otherwise dismissed. 3. The stay of the orders made by the Tribunal on 17 November 2014 is lifted. Catchwords: Home Building – Appeal – no errors of law – application for leave to appeal – decision fair and equitable – decision not against weight of the evidence – leave refused – appeal dismissed. Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Texts Cited: NCAT Procedural Direction 3 Expert Witnesses Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter Gerard Magill - Appellant Sophie Dilworth - Respondent Representation: Appellant in person Respondent in person File Number(s): AP 14/58729 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Commercial and Consumer Division Date of Decision: 17 November 2014 Before: D Moss, General Member File Number(s): HB 14/34558

REASONS for decision 1. Peter Magill (the appellant) has appealed against a decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division (CCD) of this Tribunal made on 17 November 2014 in which he was ordered to pay the Ms Dilworth (the respondent) the sum of $18,767.96. This was comprised of the costs of rectification of a defective bathroom constructed by the appellant at the respondent's home of $16,976.00, and $1,800.00, being the cost of an expert report. 2. The appellant asserts errors of law said to have been made by the Tribunal in the course of its decision and also seeks leave to appeal on the ground that he may have suffered a substantial injustice because the decision of the Tribunal was against the weight of the evidence and was not fair and equitable. 3. We have decided to dismiss the appeal because the matters the appellant complains of are not errors of law, and because we do not consider that the decision was unfair and inequitable, or against the weight of the evidence. Set out below are our reasons for reaching those conclusions.