Goh v Kabadanis (Appeal) - [2024] ACAT 54

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

GOH v KABADANIS (Appeal) [2024] ACAT 54

AA 45/2023 (XD 1179/2021)
Catchwords: APPEAL – civil dispute – contract for converting existing pergola to a sunroom – whether the original tribunal erred by considering claim by reference to amount claimed – whether the original tribunal erred in its consideration of terms of the contract regarding timeliness and adherence to “Australian standards” – whether the original tribunal erred in its consideration of claimed failure to provide services with due care and skill – whether the original tribunal erred in rejecting claim respondent repudiated the contract by conduct – whether original tribunal erred in rejecting claimed breaches of the Australian Consumer Law – whether original tribunal erred in its consideration of opinion evidence regarding defects in work done at the time the contract ended – whether original tribunal erred in its consideration of charges for materials and labour – no error proved – appeal dismissed
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 79, 82
Australian Consumer Law ss 18, 60, 101
Planning and Development Act 2007 s 205

Cases cited:Giusida Pty Ltd v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2016] ACTSC 275
Goh v Kabadanis [2023] ACAT 80
ISPT Pty Ltd and Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2013] ACAT 43
Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 61
LP 202012 (Hugh Ford) v Council of The Law Society of the ACT [2024] ACAT 12
Legal Practitioner v Council of Law Societyof the ACT [2011] ACTSC 207
Swift v Wearing-Smith [2016] NSWCA 38
Thornthwaite and the Commissioner for Social Housing for the ACT [2012] ACAT 11
Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (NSW) Ltd (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 632
Wearing-Smith v Swift [2014] NSWDC 159

Tribunal:Presidential Member G McCarthy
Member W Hawkins

Date of Orders:  7 August 2024
Date of Reasons for Decision:      7 August 2024
Date of Publication:  14 August 2024
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY          )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          AA 45/2023
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL GOH
Appellant

AND:

PETER KABADANIS
Respondent

TRIBUNAL:Presidential Member G McCarthy
Member W Hawkins

DATE:7 August 2024

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

The appeal is dismissed.

………………………………..

Presidential Member G McCarthy
For and on behalf of the Tribunal

REASONS FOR DECISION

This appeal arose from a decision of the tribunal (the Original Tribunal) finding the respondent should pay the appellant $1,145 by way of a determination of a dispute between the parties about construction works done or to be done by the respondent to convert the appellant’s existing deck and pergola at their home into a sunroom with a roof, walls, windows and door.[1] Where the respondent had earlier paid the money, no further order requiring payment was made and the application was therefore dismissed.
[1] Goh v Kabadanis [2023] ACAT 80
The appellant appealed on many grounds, some of which were repetitive of earlier grounds, but which resolved to the grounds we deal with below.
Before doing so, it is important to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Goh v Kabadanis (Appeal) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] ACAT 54
Decision Date: 7 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Goh v Kabadanis (Appeal), the parties involved were Goh, the appellant, and Kabadanis, the respondent. The dispute arose from a legal matter that was initially heard by the Tribunal, and Goh appealed the decision made by the Tribunal. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court in Australia. The nature of the dispute was centred around the interpretation of certain contractual terms and the applicability of relevant laws and regulations.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide involved the interpretation of the contract between the parties and the determination of whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the law in reaching its decision. Goh argued that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the contract and in its application of the law, leading to an unjust outcome. The court had to assess whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and whether there were any errors in the interpretation or application of the law.

The court examined the arguments presented by both parties and considered the relevant legal principles and precedents. The court found that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the contract and had applied the law appropriately in reaching its decision. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was supported by the evidence and was not in error. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Tribunal was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

The appeal is 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.