Continue reading FILIMON and RIMMER
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- FILIMON and RIMMER [2013] WASAT 13
- Case
- [2013] WASAT 13
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Filimon v Rimmer, the applicants sought leave to apply for internal review under section 58(2) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA). The applicants, Mr. Filimon and Mr. Rimmer, were dissatisfied with the decision of the original Tribunal which rejected their defence that the first-named respondent was not responsible for the building work in question. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original Tribunal erred in rejecting the applicants' defence concerning the responsibility for the building work. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the original Tribunal's reasons for its decision were inadequate and whether the applicants would suffer substantial injustice if leave to apply for internal review were not granted. The court also examined whether the original Tribunal erred in its assessment of the cost of remedial work and whether the doctrine of estoppel or section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) applied in this context.
The court found that the original Tribunal did not err in rejecting the applicants' defence that the first-named respondent was not responsible for the building work. The court held that the interpretation of section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) did not apply in this instance. The court also concluded that the reasons provided by the original Tribunal were adequate, and the applicants would not suffer substantial injustice if leave to apply for internal review were not granted. However, the court did find that the original Tribunal erred in its assessment of the cost of remedial work. Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to apply for internal review, but limited it to one ground concerning the cost assessment.
The court's final order was to grant the application for leave to apply for internal review limited to one ground concerning the cost assessment and dismiss the application in all other respects.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original Tribunal erred in rejecting the applicants' defence concerning the responsibility for the building work. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the original Tribunal's reasons for its decision were inadequate and whether the applicants would suffer substantial injustice if leave to apply for internal review were not granted. The court also examined whether the original Tribunal erred in its assessment of the cost of remedial work and whether the doctrine of estoppel or section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) applied in this context.
The court found that the original Tribunal did not err in rejecting the applicants' defence that the first-named respondent was not responsible for the building work. The court held that the interpretation of section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) did not apply in this instance. The court also concluded that the reasons provided by the original Tribunal were adequate, and the applicants would not suffer substantial injustice if leave to apply for internal review were not granted. However, the court did find that the original Tribunal erred in its assessment of the cost of remedial work. Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to apply for internal review, but limited it to one ground concerning the cost assessment.
The court's final order was to grant the application for leave to apply for internal review limited to one ground concerning the cost assessment and dismiss the application in all other respects.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave granted limited to one ground and otherwise dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.