James v Tottman (No.2)

In this case, James brought proceedings against Tottman, asserting that Tottman had performed building work without a required licence and subsequently engaged in a contractual dispute. The matter was initially decided by a Tribunal, and James appealed the Tribunal's decision to a higher court. The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted the law regarding unlicensed building work and whether the evidence obtained through an improperly recorded telephone conversation should be excluded.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court included the liability of an unlicensed person for damages in a building work contract and the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence under statute. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Tottman's unlicensed status and the prohibition on remuneration should exempt him from liability for damages and whether the statutory provisions on evidence precluded the use of the recorded telephone conversation.

The court ruled that the Tribunal's interpretation of the law was correct and dismissed the appeal. The court found that despite Tottman's unlicensed status, he remained liable for damages for breach of contract. Furthermore, the court held that the statutory provisions did not exclude the recorded telephone conversation from evidence, thereby allowing its use in the case. The court also refused leave to appeal from the decision, affirming the lower court's ruling.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal insofar as it was an appeal on a question of law from the decision of the Tribunal of 26 May 2020 and to refuse leave to appeal from the decision.