NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest Issue 2 of 2026 |
The NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest provides monthly keyword summaries of decisions of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) Internal Appeal Panel.
This issue features summaries of the following Appeal Panel decisions handed down in February 2026: |
YPN v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2026] NSWCATAP 31: An Appeal Panel upheld an appeal from the Guardianship Division of NCAT, finding NCAT erred on a question of law when appointing the NSW Trustee and Guardian as financial manager of the subject person’s (YRY’s) estate, rather than her son, YPN. NCAT made its decision on erroneous findings of material fact and did not give proper consideration to the subject person’s family, cultural and linguistic background. Such errors caused NCAT to constructively fail to exercise its jurisdiction. The Panel set aside NCAT’s decision and ordered the appointment of YPN as financial manager of the estate.
|
YQM v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2026] NSWCATAP 46: An Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division (AEOD) of NCAT, concluding that NCAT did not fail to afford procedural fairness, was not affected by apprehended bias, and did not misconstrue or fail to apply s 39 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW). The appellant sought review of the decision, but NCAT affirmed the NSW Trustee and Guardian’s decision to sell the protected person’s home to fund ongoing care. The Panel found that this decision did not contain any errors on questions of law nor any grounds on which leave to appeal could be granted. As a result, the stay on the sale of the property was lifted.
|
Daley v The Owners – Strata Plan 2754 [2026] NSWCATAP 38: A lot owner (Mr Daley) appealed a decision from the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT, which dismissed his application for orders regarding the supply of documents kept by the owners corporation (the OC). An Appeal Panel considered whether an owners corporation (OC) complied with its obligations under ss 182 and 183 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (the SSMA) when providing the appellant with an electronic link to all of the documents and records it held. The appeal was allowed because NCAT failed to ask itself whether the OC had, in fact, made the documents “available for inspection”. The Panel remitted the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal.
|
Curtis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 60: An appeal from NCAT’s Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division (AEOD) was dismissed on the basis that the Appeal Panel’s decision would be “moot”. Mr Curtis appealed NCAT’s decision to revoke his firearms licence (whereby NCAT affirmed the Commissioner’s revocation decision). The appeal was dismissed due to amendments to firearms legislation in December 2025, which removed NCAT’s power to review firearms licence decisions. Without a statutory power to substitute NCAT’s decision, and when setting aside the AEOD’s decision would have made no practical difference, it follows that the Appeal Panel’s decision would have lacked “any practical utility”.
|
Each case title is hyperlinked to the full decision available on NSW Caselaw. |
|
|
1. Did NCAT constructively fail to exercise jurisdiction by appointing the NSW Trustee as financial manager of the subject person’s estate? |
YPN v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2026] NSWCATAP 31
Appeal from the Guardianship Division I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; J Moir, Senior Member; Dr M Wroth, Senior Member
In sum: An appeal from the Guardianship Division of NCAT was allowed on the basis that NCAT had erred on a question of law in its decision to appoint the NSW Trustee and Guardian (NSW Trustee) as financial manager of the subject person’s (YRY’s) estate. An Appeal Panel decided that YRY’s son, YPN (the Appellant), should be appointed as financial manager instead. The Panel found that NCAT made erroneous findings of material fact and did not properly consider the subject person’s circumstances. As such, NCAT constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction (an error on a question of law).
Facts: In July 2025, the Guardianship Division appointed the NSW Trustee as financial manager of YRY’s estate. On 5 September 2025, YRY’s son provided a statement from YRY which informed NCAT that she did not want the NSW Trustee to manage her money. This statement could only be given very limited weight and her son needed to establish a recognised basis to be granted the relief sought (an order that he be appointed financial manager of YRY’s estate in lieu of the NSW Trustee).
At the time of NCAT’s decision YRY was living with her daughter. YRY had, however, been living with her son (the appellant) for the preceding 35 years. While NCAT determined that there was “some conflict” between YRY’s adult children (the appellant and his sister), the fact that she no longer lived with her son was not material to any “conflict”. The purported conflict stemmed from NCAT’s finding that there were “conflicting views among the family members as to the appropriate way of dealing with (YRY’s) and the family’s, financial affairs”. The Tribunal noted the Appellant’s view “appeared to be” that his sister’s receipt of $250,000 from YRY’s $600,000 estate “would jeopardise (YRY’s) capacity to live in a suitable residential aged care facility”. This was the extent of the evidence of family conflict before NCAT. While the money could have been paid back, NCAT found that the conflict caused YRY distress and was satisfied that it would be in her best interests for an independent financial decision maker to be appointed.
Held (allowing the appeal):
(i) NCAT’s ultimate and critical finding that the NSW Trustee was the appropriate appointee was “plainly wrong” because it did not accurately assess the Appellant’s 35 year history of managing YRY’s finances (which was subject to no complaints), and failed to recognise that the sibling “conflict” was likely to be resolved simply by the repayment of monies if and when the appellant was appointed as financial manager. As such, NCAT’s decision was erroneous on a question of law in being based on erroneous findings of material fact.
(ii) While it was strictly unnecessary to do so, the Panel also considered whether NCAT failed to “give proper weight to YRY’s expressed wishes”. NCAT rightly found no “disqualifying conduct” by YPN and neither his sister nor YRY opposed him being appointed as YRY’s financial manager. However, the appellant argued that the NSW Trustee did not communicate directly with YRY and that this resulted in confusion and isolation (noting that YRY requires a mandarin interpreter). The Panel concluded that this failure to give “proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the need to preserve YRY’s family and cultural relationships in the context of her cultural and linguistic background”, was a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. As such, if it was necessary, the Panel would extend time to appeal on this ground.
(iii) The appeal was allowed and pursuant to s 81(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the Panel set aside NCAT’s orders and in lieu thereof, ordered the appellant be appointed as financial manager of YRY’s estate. |
2. Did NCAT make any errors on questions of law when affirming the NSW Trustee’s decision to sell the protected person’s real property? |
YQM v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2026] NSWCATAP 46
Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Armstrong J, President; R Booby, Principal Member
In sum: An Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division (AEOD) of NCAT, which concerned the NSW Trustee’s decision to sell the protected person’s home. A child of the protected person opposed the sale and appealed NCAT’s decision on the basis that it made errors on various questions of law. The Panel found no such errors and dismissed the appeal without granting leave to appeal.
Facts: Since April 2021, the NSW Trustee has been managing the estate of the protected person (a 95-year-old woman). The appellant is one of the protected person’s three daughters and opposed the NSW Trustee’s decision to sell the protected person’s house (her main asset) to fund her ongoing expenses and care and support needs. Under s 53 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act), the NSW Trustee conducted an internal review of, and affirmed, the sale decision. The appellant subsequently applied for administrative review of the sale decision in the AEOD of NCAT. NCAT also affirmed the NSW Trustee’s decision. The NSW Trustee had recommended the sale because on then current income and expenditure calculations, the protected person had insufficient cash to fund her then current (and future) cashflow shortfall. However, the appellant argued that in light of the protected person’s purported opposition to the sale of the house, the correct and preferable decision was for the property to be retained.
The Panel understood the questions of law raised to be: whether NCAT failed to afford the appellant procedural fairness; whether NCAT’s decision was affected by apprehended bias; and whether NCAT misconstrued or failed to apply s 39 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW) (‘Trustee Act’).
Held (refusing the appeal):
(i) Firstly, the claim that NCAT failed to afford procedural fairness to the appellant lacked substance. NCAT’s first purported failure was that it denied her the opportunity to make a closing statement in the AEOD proceedings. However, the Panel rejected this claim noting that the transcript of proceedings clearly showed she was given this opportunity. According to the appellant, NCAT’s second failure was not providing interpreters. Not only had the appellant not requested an interpreter for herself or the protected person (even after it was raised by NCAT) but she did not give notice to the AEOD or other parties that the protected person would be participating in the hearing or giving evidence. The appellant had been provided with information by NCAT about how to request an interpreter. The Panel was satisfied that the appellant had an “ample opportunity” to request an interpreter. The Panel also noted that for witnesses, the relevant party is responsible for arranging an interpreter, not NCAT.
(ii) Secondly, the appellant claimed that the decision under appeal was affected by apprehended bias on the part of the Tribunal Member. This argument was based on the Senior Member purportedly “cut[ting] off” the appellant’s oral submissions and stating that “my decision will not shock anyone”. The Panel dismissed this ground, noting that the Member had merely decided to reserve her decision instead of delivering it immediately. There was no proven claim for apprehended bias or that the Member “prejudged” the outcome.
(iii) Thirdly, on whether NCAT misconstrued or failed to apply s 39 of the Trustee Act, the Panel agreed with the NSW Trustee’s submission that the Senior Member adequately considered s 39. While the Senior Member did not specifically refer to the guiding principles in s 39(b) and (c), this did not constitute a misapplication of the Trustee Act, nor did it mean that incorrect legal principles were applied. Importantly, medical evidence and evidence of the protected person’s capacity and future needs were appropriately considered.
(iv) All grounds for leave to appeal were dismissed because no issue of general importance or matter of principle was identified. |
3. Is it sufficient for an owners corporation, upon request, to provide an owner with an electronic link to all of its documents and records? Or, under ss 182 and 183 of the SSMA, are there additional obligations on the owners corporation when providing access to records? |
Daley v The Owners – Strata Plan 2754 [2026] NSWCATAP 38
Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division P Durack SC, Senior Member; P H Molony, Senior Member
In sum: Mr Daley is a lot owner who appealed NCAT’s decision to dismiss his application for orders regarding the supply of documents kept by the owners corporation (the OC). The main issue on appeal was whether an OC, in these circumstances, complied with its obligations under Div 2 Pt 10 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (the SSMA) by providing an owner with an electronic link to all documents and records it held. An Appeal Panel allowed the appeal, concluding that NCAT’s failure to ask itself whether the OC had met the requirement to make the documents “available for inspection”, was an error on a question of law. The Panel remitted the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal.
Facts: In his original application to NCAT, Mr Daley said he had been requesting access to “the strata roll” and other information since 30 July 2023. He was told by the strata manager that he was entitled to inspect the strata records and should engage a strata searcher for assistance. Mr Daley said he was not prepared to pay the costs for a strata searcher and subsequently initiated NCAT proceedings. However, once Mr Daley was informed that he could complete the search himself by simply paying a fee, he withdrew his NCAT application and proceeded to access the records electronically.
Mr Daley’s application in these proceedings focused on the difficulties he faced when searching for records. He claimed, for example, that passwords were corrupted, records were “a mess”, and no results for “strata roll” appeared in the records which were “all over the place”. In the NCAT proceedings, the respondent did not suggest it had provided evidence to contradict these claims but instead relied on its contention that providing the link was sufficient to meet its obligations under ss 182 and 283 of the SSMA, regardless of the state the records were in.
NCAT found (in favour of the OC) that the applicant’s inability to find a particular record does not necessarily mean it was “wrongfully withheld” or that the OC failed to make it “available”. Additionally, NCAT found no evidence to support the proposition that the OC did not enable the “means” of inspection under s 183(3). The decision was appealed on the basis that NCAT erred on a question of law by not “following the law” in relation to the requirement to make available and facilitate an owner’s inspection of documents kept by the OC.
Held (allowing the appeal):
(i) NCAT did not ask itself whether the OC met the requirement to make the “documents available for inspection” – a real issue on the facts. The Panel noted that “it is difficult to see how the provision of only a link to such documents would meet the requirement of s 182(3) in the absence of some clear and reasonably specific guidance as to where and how the documents sought were to be located.” Importantly, the Panel explained that while s 183(3) accepts that the “means” of inspection may be via “electronic access”, this access must be to the “documents” or “items” not just the “books and records”.
(ii) The circumstances relevant to whether the OC met its inspection obligations include “…the nature of the storage system and software, whether links are provided to required documents, whether they can otherwise be easily viewed or located, the nature of the user interface, and its availability and accessibility to a person who is not an expert strata searcher.”
(iii) The Panel did not think the legislation intended lot owners to be required to engage, at the lot owner’s expense, an expert for accessing strata records.
(iv) With that said, Mr Daley’s allegations of “an intentional or deliberate withholding of access to the documents” or obstruction in obtaining access by “nefarious means” ought not to feature in the redetermination of his application.
(v) As such, the Panel remitted the application for redetermination by a differently constituted Tribunal, except for the appellant’s allegations that there was an intentional or deliberate withholding of access. |
4. Was there any practical utility in appealing NCAT’s finally determined decision under the Firearms Act after NCAT’s statutory power to review decisions under the Act has been revoked? |
Curtis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 60
Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Dr J Lucy, Principal Member; J Redfern PSM, Senior Member
In sum: Mr Curtis appealed NCAT’s decision to revoke his firearms licence (whereby NCAT affirmed the Commissioner’s revocation decision). An Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal on the basis that it had no “practical utility” or was “moot”. This was largely the result of amendments to firearms legislation in December 2025, which removed the AEOD’s power to review firearms licence decisions.
Facts: On 24 December 2025, the Firearms Act 1996 No 46 (NSW) (Firearms Act) was amended (the legislature passed the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (the Amendment Act)) to provide that an application to NCAT under Part 8 of that Act to review a relevant decision made, but not finally determined, before 24 December 2025 is taken to have been withdrawn. In light of this amendment, NCAT sought submissions from the parties as to whether the Appeal Panel should therefore dismiss the proceedings for being frivolous, vexatious, otherwise misconceived or lacking in substance or any practical utility. Both parties submitted that the Panel had jurisdiction to determine the appeal, but the Commissioner contended that the appeal lacked utility and should be dismissed.
The Amendment Act removed the entitlement of persons to apply to NCAT for review of relevant decisions under the Firearms Act, and removed NCAT’s power to deal with such applications. While the parties agreed that the application had been “finally determined” by NCAT’s first instance decision (on 4 November 2025), the Panel had to satisfy itself of this. Separate to the jurisdiction question, the Panel had to ask itself whether the appeal was “moot” i.e., whether the orders an Appeal Panel could make, had any practical utility.
Held (refusing the appeal):
(i) The Panel decided that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal but dismissed the appeal because it was moot.
(ii) The amendments resulted in NCAT’s powers becoming “illusory” in circumstances where the appeal is from a decision affirming the revocation of a firearms licence. Without power to exercise such a function, the Panel cannot substitute its own decision for the decision under review (as per s 81(1)(d) of the NCAT Act), unless it has some statutory power to do so (which it now does not).
(iii) The Panel noted that if it set aside NCAT’s decision, it would not make any “practical difference” – it would simply leave in force the Commissioner’s decision which, like NCAT’s decision, revoked Mr Curtis’ licence.
(iv) Without a statutory power to substitute NCAT’s decision, and when setting aside the decision makes no practical change, it follows that the appeal lacks “any practical utility”. |
|
|
Hawken v J Emery Investments Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 4 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Ziegler, Senior Member; Dr D Goldman, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – leave to appeal – whether utility where no practical consequences for the parties – principles – leave to appeal refused |
|
Nguyen v Wessell [2026] NSWCATAP 27 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: J Sullivan, Senior Member; M Tyson, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – extension of time in which to appeal – exercise of discretion – length of delay – adequacy of explanation for the delay – prejudice to respondent – non-compliance with Tribunal order - no error of law |
Ramos Miguel Pty Ltd v Tinoco [2026] NSWCATAP 28 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member; Dr K George, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – question of law – no question of principle – leave to appeal – no question of principle |
Bluestream Enterprises Pty Ltd v Perich Property Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 29 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: K Ransome, Principal Member; H Dixon SC, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – retail lease – whether appellant an impacted lessee for purposes of COVID-19 Regulations – whether Tribunal made factual errors – whether appellant was denied procedural fairness – whether Tribunal failed to consider evidence and submissions made by appellant |
|
YPN v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2026] NSWCATAP 31 Appeal from the Guardianship Division Decision of: I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; J Moir, Senior Member; Dr M Wroth, Senior Member Catchwords: Financial management order- whether decision at first instance based on material errors of fact- whether Tribunal at first instance failed to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to mandatory relevant consideration- whether Tribunal erred by declining to appoint member of protected person’s family as her financial manager |
YQE v Public Guardian [2026] NSWCATAP 32 Appeal from the Guardianship Division Decision of: I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; J Moir, Senior Member; Dr M Wroth, Senior Member Catchwords: Guardianship- whether appropriate to permit fresh evidence in appeal- whether leave to appeal should be granted - whether appeal should be allowed - whether some of the orders under appeal should be set aside and other orders substituted for them |
Noorishoja v Ayla Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 33 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – whether error on a question of law established – whether otherwise leave to appeal should be granted – no error on a question of law established – no basis for leave to appeal established |
Efremov v NSW Health Administration Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 34 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; J Redfern PSM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL- Where Tribunal affirmed decision of agency declining to deal with application to provide information pursuant to Government Information (public Access) Act 2009- whether Tribunal constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction- whether Tribunal erred on question of law- whether leave to appeal should be granted |
Athens v The Owners-Strata Plan No 47035 [2026] NSWCATAP 35 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President; J Redfern PSM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – procedure – time limits – extension of time LAND LAW – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) – refusal to appoint compulsory manager on a limited basis – whether leave to appeal should be granted. |
Nasser v Sima Real Estate Pty Limited [2026] NSWCATAP 36 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S de Jersey Principal Member; H Woods, Senior Member Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW - agent’s fees and charges – differing versions of the management agency agreement – agent’s claims for disbursements and consumer’s claims for disbursements APPEALS – whether significant new evidence reasonably available at the time of the hearing – error on a question of law – no jurisdiction to make an order in favour of the supplier in the supplier’s proceedings – whether decision not fair and equitable – whether decision against the weight of evidence |
Vafa v University of Newcastle [2026] NSWCATAP 37 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: H Dixon SC, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – whether appeal against evaluative determination of Tribunal pursuant to Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) should be allowed – whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether leave should be granted to adduce further evidence – where no identifiable question of law or material error – non-publication orders |
Daley v The Owners – Strata Plan 2754 [2026] NSWCATAP 38 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; P H Molony, Senior Member Catchwords: LAND LAW — Strata title — Owners corporation — Accounts and records of owners corporation —Inspection—Whether, in the circumstances relating to the lot owner’s request to allow inspection of documents, and in the events that occurred, providing a link to the electronically stored books and records of the owners corporation satisfied the requirement under s 182 (3) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) that the owners corporation make available for inspection the documents requested. APPEALS – question of law raised, namely whether the Tribunal did not address an important aspect of the appellant’s case. |
Murray v Bennton Pty Ltd t/as South Coast Boatshed [2026] NSWCATAP 39 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; D Goldman, Senior Member Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW-supply of services-contract to rebuild boat engine-services supplied did not comply with statutory guarantee of due care and skill-non-compliance with the guarantee caused need to replace the engine- quantum of damages recoverable under s267 (4) of the ACL -question of betterment. APPEALS-error of law-Tribunal did not ask itself the right question-need to redetermine question of quantum of loss in respect of the cost to replace the engine. |
Brandes v Community Association DP 270482 [2026] NSWCATAP 40 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – whether error on a question of law established – whether leave to appeal should be granted – no question of principle |
|
Miles v Buildfix Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWCATAP 42 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S De Jersey, Principal Member; R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member Catchwords: COSTS – where two applications considered at first instance – rr 38 and 38A Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) |
Raffoul v Wong [2026] NSWCATAP 43 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; D Ziegler, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – appeal from a discretionary decision to refuse set-aside application made under Clause 9 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation 2014 (NSW) – no error of law or other appealable error established. |
FHY v Cumberland City Council [2026] NSWCATAP 44 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: K Ransome, Principal Member Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – privacy – whether information collected – information unsolicited – no obligation for agency to proactively inform person that it holds personal information – request to amend must be specific – extent of obligation to ensure accuracy of information before use – no general discretion to make orders under s 52 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) absent a finding of a contravention of an IPP, privacy code of practice or disclosure of personal information held in a public register |
El–Azzi v Bahsa [2026] NSWCATAP 45 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Goldstein, Senior Member; Dr K M George, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – Amendment |
YQM v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2026] NSWCATAP 46 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: Armstrong J, President; R Booby, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEALS –– from decision of NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) to affirm decision of NSW Trustee to sell protected person’s house –– principles governing decisions made under NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW) –– no error on question of law –– no breach of procedural fairness –– no apprehended bias –– no misapplication of law –– leave to appeal refused –– no obvious factual error of unorthodox approach to fact-finding –– no other basis on which leave to appeal should be granted APPEALS –– interpreters –– no procedural unfairness where NCAT did not arrange for an interpreter for protected person in circumstances of case |
Garg v Empre Construction Pty Ltd (No.2) [2026] NSWCATAP 47 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth Deputy President; D Goldstein Senior member Catchwords: COSTS – Who is the successful party – Amount claimed or in dispute in the appeal - No question of principle |
Tsoukaris v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 30102 [2026] NSWCATAP 48 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; K Robinson, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEALS – extension of time - application for extension of time to lodge appeal – no satisfactory explanation for delay – no fairly arguable error on a question of law or other error requiring leave to appeal – application for extension of time refused – appeal dismissed COSTS – special circumstances – indemnity costs |
Ottaviano v Leculier [2026] NSWCATAP 49 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – whether error on a question of law established – whether leave to appeal should be granted – no question of principle |
Chan v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 50 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: A Boxall, Senior Member; Dr K M George, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – whether decision against the weight of evidence or not fair and equitable - LEASES AND TENANCIES - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) |
The Owners – Strata Plan No 85385 v Barnett [2026] NSWCATAP 51 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; R Titterton OAM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL- whether timber decking on balconies and terraces is lot property or common property- consideration of provisions defining lot property and common property in the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 NSW and regulations- whether a bylaw is void for uncertainty. |
Lirantzis v Calligas [2026] NSWCATAP 52 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S de Jersey, Principal Member; J Sullivan, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – Costs – rr 38 and 38A of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) – respondents the successful party in the appeal – costs follow the event |
Ley v Children’s Guardian [2026] NSWCATAP 53 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member Catchwords: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – whether appeal rights abolished or affected by repeal of the statutory provision creating those rights – effect of transitional provisions of National Disability Insurance Scheme (Workers Checks) Act 2018 (NSW) on appeal rights under cl 17 of Sch 3 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – Appeal rights preserved and no new appeal right to the Appeal Panel created |
Papadopoulos v West Precinct Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 54 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member Catchwords: COSTS – costs application by the respondent – principles – withdrawal of appeal by the appellant - no hearing on the merits – costs application dismissed |
FZP v Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network [2026] NSWCATAP 55 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: Seiden SC DCJ, Deputy President; P H Molony, Senior Member Catchwords: HEALTH — Health records — Privacy — Disclosure for the secondary purpose of research — HPP11(1)(f) – meaning of “in the public interest” — circumstances in which course of conduct can constitute both a use under HPP 10 and a disclosure under HPP 11 HUMAN RIGHTS — Legislation — Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) – HPP 10, 11 and s 64 — whether Statutory Guidelines on Research issued by the Privacy Commissioner require strict compliance or conformity — Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) – s 55(2) |
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Herth [2026] NSWCATAP 57 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: Dr J Lucy, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEALS – firearms – whether Appeal Panel has jurisdiction to hear appeal following amendments to Firearms Act 1996 – whether Appeal Panel should grant a stay of Tribunal’s decision – whether a stay is appropriate to secure the effectiveness of the determination of the appeal - relevance of public interest to decision whether to grant a stay |
The Owners – Strata Plan No 865 v Carroll [2026] NSWCATAP 58 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President; G K Burton SC, Senior Member Catchwords: LAND LAW – Strata title -interaction of common property rights by-law with existing breaches of owners corporation’s strict duty to maintain and repair common property – construction of by-law – meaning of “affect” in context of common property with pre-existing defects – meaning of “plans” - Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 106, 149 |
Sheekey v Swain [2026] NSWCATAP 59 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President Catchwords: LAND LAW – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – breach of quiet enjoyment –identification of the agent of the landlord – whether landlord liable for actions of third parties – condition of the premises – whether premises kept in a reasonable state of repair APPEALS – practice and procedure – whether extension of time should be granted – Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) s 41 |
Curtis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 60 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: Dr J Lucy, Principal Member; J Redfern PSM, Senior Member Catchwords: Appeals – where appellant appealed from decision of Tribunal affirming the respondent’s decision to revoke his firearms licence – where firearms legislation amended to remove right to apply to the Tribunal for review of a revocation decision – whether Appeal Panel has jurisdiction to hear the appeal – whether appeal should be dismissed on the basis that it is moot |
|
DISCLAIMER: This publication has been prepared for information purposes only. The NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest should not be relied on as legal advice nor is it a substitute for reading the decisions in full. NCAT does not accept any liability to any person for the information (or the use of the information) which is provided in this publication. |
