Field v Dettman

The plaintiffs, Field and others, sought judicial review by way of an application for certiorari to quash a determination of the District Court. The District Court had dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal concerning a restitution claim to recover monies paid to a contractor, Dettman, contrary to the provisions of the *Home Building Act 1989* (NSW). The proceedings were heard by Beazley P, Meagher JA, and Preston CJ of the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court had erred in law by failing to find that payment was made under a mistake as to the requirement for the contract to be in writing, and whether this question constituted a valid ground of appeal to the District Court. Further, the Court considered whether the *Home Building Act* precluded the payee from raising any defence to a restitution claim, and whether the Act itself provided a statutory right of action to recover money paid to a contractor not entitled to receive it.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the question of payment made under a mistake was not a ground of appeal before the District Court, and therefore, the District Court did not commit an error of law by failing to determine a question that was not in issue on the appeal. Regarding the *Home Building Act*, the Court found that the entitlement to restitution had not been established, meaning the question of whether the Act precluded defences did not arise. Crucially, the Court determined that the *Home Building Act* did not confer a statutory right of action to recover money paid to a contractor not entitled to receive it.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs' Further Amended Summons and ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.