Housman v Camuglia

The appeal concerned a dispute between neighbours, Housman (appellants) and Camuglia (respondent), arising from construction works undertaken by Housman that allegedly caused damage to Camuglia's adjoining property. Camuglia claimed damages for consequential loss, specifically lost rent due to apartments being unlettable as a result of damage to a stairway. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge's reasons for finding the apartments unlettable were inadequate, particularly in light of unchallenged engineering evidence that the stairway was safe. It also had to consider whether the trial judge had misused evidence admitted on a limited basis. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the appellants required leave to appeal a costs order, which was based on the rejection of a *Calderbank* offer, given that they had an appeal as of right against the primary judgment. Finally, the court considered whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellants had unreasonably rejected the *Calderbank* offer, taking into account a factual error in the letter and the timing of its rejection.

The Court of Appeal held that the inadequacy of reasons, if any, was not a ground for appeal where the appeal was by way of rehearing, and that no error was made out regarding the misuse of evidence. The court also determined, after considering the legislative history of section 127(2)(b) of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW) and its antecedents, that the appellants were entitled to challenge the special costs order as of right. Regarding the *Calderbank* offer, the court found no error in the trial judge's assessment that it had been unreasonably rejected, notwithstanding the factual error in the letter and the timing of its rejection.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.