Body Corporate for Suzanne Court CTA 13248 v Kongas

The appeal was brought by the Body Corporate for Suzanne Court CTA 13248 against the respondent, Kongas. The body corporate, representing the owners of the Suzanne Court property, brought an action in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against Kongas, who had previously undertaken works for the body corporate. The claim was brought for defective work done by Kongas and a fraudulent inducement to enter into a contract for those works. The primary judge of the CAT dismissed the claim on the basis that the claim for defective work was brought outside the limitation period and the claim for fraud failed as there was no evidence of fraud. The body corporate sought leave to appeal against the decision of the primary judge. The court was required to consider whether the grounds for leave to appeal were established, particularly whether the appeal had a reasonable chance of success.

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were not established. The court found that the claim for defective work was time-barred, and there was no evidence of fraud. The court also found that the body corporate had failed to demonstrate that the appeal had a reasonable chance of success. The court noted that the body corporate had not identified any errors of law made by the primary judge that would result in a different outcome on appeal. The court found that the appeal was not likely to succeed and therefore refused leave to appeal.

The court noted that the body corporate had not demonstrated that the appeal had a reasonable chance of success, and that the appeal was unlikely to result in a different outcome. The court found that the primary judge had correctly identified and applied the relevant law, and that there were no errors of law that would warrant an appeal. The court found that the appeal was not likely to succeed and therefore refused leave to appeal. The court noted that the body corporate had failed to demonstrate that the appeal had a reasonable chance of success, and that the appeal was unlikely to result in a different outcome. The court found that the primary judge had correctly identified and applied the relevant law, and that there were no errors of law that would warrant an appeal.

The court ordered that leave to appeal be refused.