Legal Research
Cases
Woolfe v Alexander Sussman

Woolfe v Alexander Sussman

Case [2001] NSWSC 702 18 July 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Woolfe v Alexander Sussman t/as A Sussman Construction Consulting Services & Anor [2001] NSWSC 702

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Civil

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 10937/01

HEARING DATE(S): 18 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 July 2001

PARTIES :

Denise Woolfe (Plt)
Alex Sussman (1D)
Fair Trading Tribunal (2D)

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan J

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Fair Trading Tribunal

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : BU 2000/5318

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Deputy Chairperson McDonnell

COUNSEL : J Gruzman (Plt)
In person (1D)
Submitting appearance (2D)

SOLICITORS: Herd & Associates (Plt)
In person (1D)

CATCHWORDS: Administrative law - appeal on questions of law from a decision of the Home Building Division of the Fair Trading Tribunal - building dispute - redevelopment proposal - whether the Tribunal erred in holding it had jurisdiction to determine the claim - whether goods or services provided in the course of considering the feasibility of the redevelopment to be considered "residential building work" - whether plaintiff denied natural justice as a result of the Tribunal's failure to record the correct address.

LEGISLATION CITED: Home Building Act 1989 s 89(B), s 3(1)

CASES CITED: Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479
Full Brick Homes Pty Ltd v Consumer Claims Tribunal & Ors 13 February 1997, NSWSC

DECISION: See para 25

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

McCLELLAN J

WEDNESDAY, 18 JULY 2001

10937/01 - WOOLFE v ALEXANDER SUSSMAN t/as A SUSSMAN CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING SERVICES & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This matter comes before me by way of summons in which the plaintiff seeks various declarations and orders in relation to a decision of the Fair Trading Tribunal. That decision was given in favour of the first defendant when he brought proceedings in the Tribunal claiming moneys said to be owing to him for services he provided to the plaintiff in relation to the re-development of her property. The plaintiff owned a dwelling on a large parcel of land which was considered to be suitable for re-development. Being inexperienced in such matters, she, through her then solicitor, was introduced to the first defendant as a firm who could assist her to determine an appropriate re-development outcome for her property. In contemplation was a re-development with a duplex arrangement.

2 Apparently the plaintiff had been in discussion with a plumber and it was contemplated that an arrangement might be entered into between her and the plumber to effect the development. The first defendant was brought in to assess the feasibility of such a project and to give other advice. That project did not proceed but the first defendant continued to provide services by way of valuations, feasibilities, potential cash flows, inquiries as to finance and quotes from project builders. Generally, he was called upon, and did advise, in relation to the "best use" of the property. I have summarised the elements of the service which he provided from the description which he gave me in court today.

3 The matter came before the Fair Trading Tribunal and…

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.

Continue reading Woolfe v Alexander Sussman

Details

AGLC: Woolfe v Alexander Sussman [2001] NSWSC 702
Case: [2001] NSWSC 702
Decision Date: 18 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolfe v Alexander Sussman involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a building consultant, and the defendant, a real estate agent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached natural justice by not recording the correct address in the proceedings before the Home Building Division of the Fair Trading Tribunal. The plaintiff also claimed that the Tribunal was wrong to find that it had jurisdiction over the case, and that the services provided in considering the feasibility of a redevelopment should be classified as "residential building work." The dispute came before the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with deciding these legal issues.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal erred in asserting its jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the services related to the feasibility study for the redevelopment should be classified as "residential building work." Finally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff was denied natural justice by the Tribunal's failure to record the correct address.

The court found that the Tribunal did not err in asserting jurisdiction over the case, as the services related to the feasibility study were indeed "residential building work." The court concluded that the plaintiff had not been denied natural justice by the failure to record the correct address, as the error did not affect the outcome of the proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the decision of the Tribunal, finding no merit in the plaintiff's appeal. The court confirmed that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the case and that the services related to the feasibility study for the redevelopment were indeed "residential building work." The court also found that the plaintiff was not denied natural justice by the failure to record the correct address. As a result, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Tribunal was upheld.

Orders