NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest Issue 4 of 2025 |
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 April 2025: |
YLU v Public Guardian [2025] NSWCATAP 81: An Appeal Panel has dismissed an appeal alleging that the Tribunal misapplied s 17(1)(c) of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) in the consideration of whether the appellant ‘was able’, rather than ‘is able’ to carry out the functions of the guardianship order. It was found that the Tribunal did consider all the evidence postdating previous findings about the appellant, but that evidence was not persuasive. The Appeal Panel noted that the absence of an express reference in the Tribunal’s dispositive reasoning does not mean that it failed to have regard to the views of the subject person and the separate representative.
|
Fiani v Daikin Australia Pty Limited [2025] NSWCATAP 80: An Appeal Panel has set aside the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss a claim because the proceedings had commenced outside the time limits set out in s 79L of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), finding that the parties were not given an opportunity to make submissions on the issue, which was an error of law. The Appeal Panel also found that the Tribunal had not properly considered the second aspect of the appellant’s case, noting that he was not legally represented therefore the argument was not raised as “clearly” as would be otherwise expected.
|
|
Lewis v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 32924 [2025] NSWCATAP 72: An Appeal Panel has allowed an appeal in part from the Consumer and Commercial Division concerning three special by-laws. The appellant, who was first legally represented on appeal, raised new points of law about the validity of the special by-laws, which were permitted by the Appeal Panel under the guiding principle in s 36 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The second and third by-laws contained drafting issues and were declared invalid and void under s 150 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (SSMA) however the challenge to the validity of the first special by-law was rejected.
|
Each case title is hyperlinked to the full decision available on NSW Caselaw. |
|
|
1. Can the Tribunal consider previous findings that an applicant for guardianship was previously ‘not able’ to exercise the functions conferred by the guardianship order? |
YLU v Public Guardian [2025] NSWCATAP 81 A Britton, Deputy President; A R Boxall, Senior Member (Legal); Dr B McPhee, Senior Member (Professional)
In sum: An Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal where it was alleged that s 17(1)(c) of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) was misapplied by the Tribunal by considering whether the appellant ‘was able’, rather than considering whether the appellant ‘is able’ to carry out the functions of the guardianship order. It was alleged that the Tribunal failed to have regard to the views of the separate representative. It was found that the Tribunal did consider all of the evidence postdating previous findings about the appellant, including the view of the separate representative. The evidence was not persuasive, and the Appeal Panel noted that the absence of an express reference in its dispositive reasoning does not mean that the Tribunal failed to have regard to the views of the separate representative.
Facts: The subject person is a 19 year old woman (the daughter) living with a global development delay, intellectual and physical disabilities. The daughter is non-verbal and has high level care needs. The daughter had been living with, and in the care of, her mother (the mother) until she was 15 years old, when she was hospitalised twice for unexplained severe weight loss (from 28kg in August 2019 to 20.1kg in June 2020). The Children’s Court of NSW reallocated parental responsibility to the Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services. Guardianship applications were filed prior to the daughter’s 18th birthday by both her mother and grandmother. The Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian and in August 2024, the parties participated in an end-of-term review with the mother reapplying to be appointed as guardian, which is the subject of this appeal.
In the review hearing, the mother’s application for guardianship was supported by the separate representative appointed for the daughter and the team leader at the daughter’s current placement. On the other hand, her grandmother, the Public Guardian, the NDIS coordinator and the Department of Community and Justice case manager, supported the reappointment of the Public Guardian. The Tribunal considered the findings made by the Children’s Court in 2020, particularly about the mother’s superficial understanding as to why the daughter was in care. It was then noted that it was the job of the Tribunal to determine the mother’s current capacity to make appropriate decisions for the daughter. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the mother is not able to exercise the guardianship functions and appointed the Public Guardian.
Held (dismissing the appeal):
(i) The mother first contended on appeal that the Tribunal misapplied s 17(1)(c) of the Guardianship Act by considering whether she ‘was able’ rather than ‘is able’ to exercise the functions conferred under the guardianship orders. It was said that, although the Tribunal stated the correct question, it failed to answer that question. The Appeal Panel found that the Tribunal had considered the evidence which postdated the removal of the daughter and that no inference could be drawn that the Tribunal failed to consider whether the mother is currently able to exercise the function. This ground of appeal was rejected.
(ii) In the second ground of appeal, it was argued that the Tribunal did not have regard to the views of the daughter (as reported by her separate representative) as required by s 4(d) of the Guardianship Act. The Tribunal’s reasons referred to the view of the separate representative that the daughter “wants [the mother] to be appointed guardian”, giving it little weight as the Tribunal was not satisfied that the daughter understood the concept of guardianship. After referring to the views expressed, the Tribunal did not refer to them again. The Appeal Panel found that the reported view was not directly relevant to the question posed by s 17(1)(c), and the absence of any express reference in its dispositive reasoning does not demonstrate that the Tribunal failed to have regard to the view of the separate representative. This ground of appeal was rejected.
(iii) In the final ground of appeal, the mother raised issues of procedural fairness, namely that the Tribunal failed to give her an opportunity to address the findings of the Children’s Court and by failing to consider the change in relationship between the mother and the daughter. On review of the transcript, the Appeal Panel found that the mother been given an opportunity to make submissions on that specific point of concern and availed herself of that opportunity in closing submissions. |
2. Should NCAT consider whether an alleged cause of action has accrued in order to determine the limitation period found in s 79L of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)? |
Fiani v Daikin Australia Pty Limited [2025] NSWCATAP 80 G Ellis SC, Senior Member; P Durack SC, Senior Member
In sum: The appellant made an application to the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT for damages from the manufacturer of his air conditioning outdoor unit, which had broken down in January 2024. The appellant claimed breaches of s 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) in relation to the installation of the unit in 2016 and s 60 in relation to the supply of services in relation to repairs undertaken in 2019. The Tribunal dismissed the claim because the proceedings had been commenced outside the three-year time limit for a consumer claim set out in s 79L of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) (FT Act). The Appeal Panel set aside these orders, finding that the Tribunal did not provide the parties with an opportunity to make submissions on the time limit, which was an error of law, and that the claim in relation to the 2019 work was not properly considered.
Facts: In December 2016, an air conditioning unit was installed at the appellant’s home. The respondent is the manufacturer of that unit. In June 2019, repairs were completed by the respondent (under warranty) to the outdoor unit. In January 2024, the air conditioning system failed, and the appellant replaced the outdoor unit at his own cost. An application was lodged with NCAT for damages against the respondent as the manufacturer of the outdoor unit, and as the supplier of services in respect of the June 2019 repairs work. The appellant, who was self-represented, did not present the second claim as clearly as what would be expected if he were legally represented. The appellant claimed breaches of s 54 of the ACL in relation to the 2016 installation and s 60 in relation to the 2019 services. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s claim because the proceedings had been commenced outside of the three-year time limit for a consumer claim set out in s 79L of the FT Act. On appeal of that decision, the appellant raised two issues; firstly, that the Tribunal did not provide him with an opportunity to make submissions as to whether the claim was out of time and secondly, that the Tribunal failed to consider the supply of services in 2019.
Held (allowing the appeal with the matter to be redetermined by a differently constituted Tribunal):
(i) The appellant submitted that he was not out of time with reference to s 273 of the ACL because his claim was in relation to the breakdown in January 2024. The Appeal Panel found that limitation period, which was previously found to deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction, was not raised with either party during the hearing and the appellant was entitled to make submissions in relation to this issue. This failure of the Tribunal was an error of law.
(ii) In relation to the limitation period, the Appeal Panel found that s 79(1)(a) of the FT Act necessitates the consideration of when a cause of action accrued. In this case, the elements of the appellant’s causes of action included both a breach and the suffering of damage. Relevantly, both causes of action do not accrue until the appellant suffers damage. The Appeal Panel determined that it was not appropriate in the circumstances to make a finding on how the legal principles applied in the appellant’s case.
(iii) Ordinarily, if the only issue was the consideration of the 2019 services claim, the matter would be redetermined by the same Tribunal Member. However, the Appeal Panel observed that the Member had expressed a firm view that was adverse to the appellant’s case and ordered that the proceedings should be redetermined by a differently constituted Tribunal. |
3. In what circumstances may NCAT deny a party’s adjournment application to provide a party time to respond to submissions? |
Yi v The Apartment Service (Australia) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 78 K Ransome, Principal Member; K Robinson, Principal Member
In sum: An Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT which claimed that the Tribunal had denied procedural fairness in failing to grant an adjournment on the hearing day to give the appellants an opportunity to respond to submissions which they had received almost two months earlier. The Appeal Panel found that the appellants had been on notice of the submissions, and they were given an opportunity to provide oral submissions in a hearing that exceeded over two hours. There was no error of law.
Facts: On the evening of 27 June 2024, the appellants booked the respondent’s accommodation through the booking platform, Airbnb. The following day, the respondent informed the appellants that the property was undergoing noisy remedial façade work and offered alternative accommodation, which was withdrawn by its owner on the same day. The appellants received a full refund from Airbnb and booked further alternative accommodation at a higher price. In their application to NCAT, the appellants claimed the difference in price for the alternative accommodation from the respondent, who managed the property that was booked on Airbnb. The Tribunal dismissed the application for reasons which included that the contractual relationship was between the appellants and Airbnb, not the respondent, and claims for breach of consumer guarantees under the ACL were not made out. The appellants appealed this decision, arguing that the Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness and misinterpreted the ACL, including that ‘service’ should be interpreted broadly to include the provision of accommodation for the dates nominated by the appellants. Additional material, being the full terms and conditions of Airbnb and a statement from one of the appellants, was also sought to be considered in the appeal.
Held: (refusing leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal)
(i) The Appeal Panel did not find that there were any procedural fairness issues at first instance when the Tribunal denied the adjournment application. The request was denied in circumstances where the appellants had adequate time to respond prior to the hearing and were given a substantial amount of time during the hearing to provide oral submissions to the Tribunal. The Appeal Panel dismissed this ground of appeal.
(ii) The Appeal Panel determined that the additional material was not relevant to the application because the statement was generally reactive to the Tribunal decision of 28 October 2024 and did not provide new or fresh evidence in relation to the substantive issues in dispute. The Appeal Panel also noted that, while they do not agree with the Tribunal that the primary contract was between Airbnb and the appellants, the Airbnb terms and conditions would not assist the appellants’ case, as Airbnb was not a respondent.
(iii) Regarding the misapplication of consumer guarantees, the Tribunal found that the reservation and future provision of accommodation was the service, and when the cancellation occurred, the provision of service came to an end. The Appeal Panel found that while the consumer guarantees operate in addition to contractual terms, the findings made by the Tribunal that the respondent did not breach the ACL were not made in error. This appeal ground as not made out. |
4. Can an Appeal Panel consider new points of law on appeal in circumstances where the appellant was not legally represented at first instance? |
Lewis v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 32924 [2025] NSWCATAP 72 G Ellis SC, Senior Member; P Durack SC, Senior Member
In sum: The appellant was not legally represented at first instance and on appeal, raised new points of law about the validity of three new special by-laws. The new points of law were permitted by the Appeal Panel under the guiding principle in s 36 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act). The three special by-laws that are the subject of the dispute were riddled with drafting errors, however the Tribunal determined that they were not harsh, unconscionable of oppressive under s 150 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (SSMA). The Appeal Panel accepted the appellant’s arguments that the Tribunal had erred in part of its conclusions. The Appeal Panel declared the second by-law to be invalid and the third by-law to be void for uncertainty.
Facts: The appellant is the owner of one of four townhouse lots in Parramatta. At the annual general meeting the respondent approved a special resolution to make three special by-laws which concerned common property. There were drafting problems with each special by-law. The appellant made a claim to the Tribunal for an order to invalidate the three special by-laws under s 150 of the SSMA because the by-laws were harsh, unconscionable or oppressive, and also a claim for the repair of common property, which was not part of the appeal. The appellant was not legally represented at first instance, however, was represented on appeal. The appellant’s representative raised new points of law for the first time on the appeal.
Held (allowing the appeal in part and otherwise dismissing the appeal concerning special by-law one):
(i) The Appeal Panel determined that the new arguments raised were short and relatively straightforward and, in the circumstances, it was consistent with the guiding principle in s 36 of the NCAT Act to permit the new arguments to made and decided on the appeal.
(ii) With respect to special by-law two, the appellant contends that the Owner’s Corporation had no power to make the “common property rights by-law” without her written consent. The Appeal Panel accepted that the requirement for such written consent is a precondition of the power to make the by-law. This approach was endorsed recently in Van der Rijt v Collins [2024] NSWCATAP 247 at [47], and therefore the by-law is invalid.
(iii) With regard to the drafting of special by-law three, the Appeal Panel accepted that the absence of an annexure referred to in the by-law as drafted, meant that the intended prescribed use could not be discerned. This deficiency rendered the whole by-law uncertain, and the Appeal Panel declared special by-law three void for uncertainty under s 232(1) of the SSMA.
(iv) The first special by-law was found to be valid because the drafting of the by-law was found to have complied with s 108(2), despite the appellant’s contentions to the contrary. The Appeal Panel dismissed this part of the appeal. |
|
|
AMC Realty Pty Limited v Cui [2025] NSWCATAP 65 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S de Jersey, Principal Member; E Bishop SC, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — furniture rental bond — inconsistent term |
FHP v Arys Health Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 66 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; K Robinson, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEALS – Civil and Administrative Tribunal - privacy – health records - s500(2) Corporations Act - stay as a result of party in liquidation – no merit to grounds |
Vincent v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2025] NSWCATAP 67 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Ziegler, Senior Member; G Ellis SC, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Whether failure to afford procedural fairness – whether significant new evidence not reasonably available at the hearing |
White House Developments Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan No 70276 [2025] NSWCATAP 68 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; D Goldstein, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS — Appeal on question of law – Scope of question of law LAND LAW — Strata title – Whether the owners corporation breached the statutory duty to properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property – Whether the owners corporation is liable to a lot owner for damages for loss of rent for breach of statutory duty and in nuisance – Whether the owners corporation is liable to a work order to repair the common property and lot of the lot owner |
Leung v Deng [2025] NSWCATAP 69 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S de Jersey, Principal Member; Dr K George, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – rent arrears – res judicata |
Wells Group Pty Ltd v Betts [2025] NSWCATAP 70 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; J Gatland, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS — Appeal on question of law – Scope of question of law APPEALS — Constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction by not addressing a material issue or by overlooking material evidence APPEALS — Leave to appeal — Principles governing – leave to appeal granted BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Residential building work – Statutory warranties under Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – Claim by owner against builder – Claim by builder against owner for money owing under contract |
Eid v Powertune Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 71 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; J Redfern, Senior Member Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW-whether breach of statutory guarantees in the Australian Consumer Law (NSW) for the supply of services in rebuilding a car engine-engine subsequently failed-failure to prove case-claimant’s expert evidence did not establish that the respondent was responsible for the cause of the engine failure. APPEALS-whether alleged errors of law made out-alleged failure to consider some of appellant’s claims-whether Tribunal overlooked material evidence-no appealable error established. |
Lewis v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 32924 [2025] NSWCATAP 72 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Ellis SC, Senior Member; P Durack SC, Senior Member Catchwords: LAND LAW — Strata titles — legality of by-laws — whether one by-law was invalid because it was made beyond power — whether another by-law was void for uncertainty APPEALS — errors of law — new points of law permitted to be raised on appeal |
|
Knight v United Autos NSW Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 74 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Burton SC, Senior Member; N Kennedy, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS — right of appeal — scope of right — error of law – No error on a question of law established APPEALS — leave to appeal — principles governing – leave refused |
YLE v YLF [2025] NSWCATAP 75 Appeal from the Guardianship Division Decision of: R Booby, Principal Member; L Organ, Senior Member; M Bolt, General Member Catchwords: GUARDIANSHIP — whether Tribunal failed to consider evidence or considered irrelevant evidence. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS — whether unanticipated presence of party denied procedural fairness to another party; whether the applicant was able to respond to a document provided days before the hearing. |
|
Watson v Powers [2025] NSWCATAP 77 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S de Jersey, Principal Member; Dr K George, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES –delay in filing appeal – - extension of time application - decision not fair and equitable – Tribunal failed to take into consideration rent arrears in making rent refund order |
Yi v The Apartment Service (Australia) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 78 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: K Ransome, Principal Member; K Robinson, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEAL – questions of law - refusal of adjournment – whether denial of procedural fairness – application of consumer law – fresh evidence additional material refused |
Clickcar Australia Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2025] NSWCATAP 79 Appeal from the Occupational Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; J Ledda, Senior Member Catchwords: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — meaning of definition of “tow truck” in Tow Truck Industry Act 1998 (NSW) — effect of expression “used or operated for the purposes of towing motor vehicles” in definition CIVIL PROCEDURE — proper respondent where administratively reviewable decision made by delegate |
Fiani v Daikin Australia Pty Limited [2025] NSWCATAP 80 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Ellis SC, Senior Member; P Durack SC, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Denial of procedural fairness – issue not raised with parties during hearing – failure to provide opportunity for submissions APPEAL – Claim raised by applicant not considered CONSUMER LAW – Limitation periods – Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), s 79L(1)(a) considered |
YLU v Public Guardian [2025] NSWCATAP 81 Appeal from the Guardianship Division Decision of: A Britton, Deputy President; A R Boxall, Senior Member (Legal); Dr B McPhee, Senior Member (Professional) Catchwords: GUARDIANSHIP — whether the Tribunal misapplied s 17(1)(c) of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) — point in time Tribunal is required to form state of satisfaction about whether proposed guardian is able to exercise the functions conferred by the guardianship order GUARDIANSHIP — whether in appointing the Public Guardian the Tribunal failed to have regard to the views of the Daughter as required by s 4(d) of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS — whether the Tribunal failed to give the appellant a reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse material — whether Tribunal was obliged to disclose its proposed conclusions |
Song v Dickson [2025] NSWCATAP 82 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S de Jersey, Principal Member; Dr K M George, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – error on a question of law – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – compensation – continuing breach – failure to repair defects existing at commencement of tenancy – rent reduction for withdrawal or reduction of goods, services or facilities |
Young v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAP 83 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: Dr R Dubler SC, Senior Member; J Redfern, Senior Member Catchwords: LICENSING – whether the Tribunal erred in confirming the revocation of the Appellant’s firearm licence – whether appeal grounds raise questions of law – whether leave should be granted – whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations, made findings without evidence and whether the Tribunal misapplied the law |
|
Choi v The Owners- Strata Plan No. 52482 [2025] NSWCATAP 85 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: A Bell SC, Senior Member; M Tibbey, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – directions at first instance for the lodgment of documents and submissions on costs - whether an internally appealable decision – whether leave to appeal should be granted. |
Agrinova Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] NSWCATAP 86 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: Seiden SC DCJ, Deputy President; H Dixon SC, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Review under Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW) – Whether Tribunal exercising judicial or administrative power TAXES AND DUTIES – Dutiable transactions – Exemption claimed under Commonwealth law – Section 90 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether Tribunal bound by High Court authority when determining an administrative review – Gazzo v Comptroller of Stamps (Vic) (1981) 149 CLR 227 applied |
Al-Aaraj v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAP 87 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member; P H Molony, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS — whether Tribunal erred in dismissing appellant’s application for review pursuant to Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 APPEALS —appeals in respect of matters of practice and procedure — no question of principle |
McCarthy v Hunter [2025] NSWCATAP 88 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; G Ellis SC, Senior Member Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – consumer guarantee in s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW) in respect of services – services in the rebuild of a car engine – competing expert evidence as to cause of engine failure APPEALS – leave to appeal required – application of leave to appeal principles – Tribunal preferred respondent’s expert to the appellant’s expert – appellant seeking to reargue the merits with the assistance of new evidence- no point of principle – new evidence not shown to be not reasonably available at the time of the hearing – not shown that Tribunal’s factual conclusions were more than arguably wrong |
Cadi Developments Pty Ltd v Ting Li; Ting Li v Cadi Developments Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 89 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; D Goldstein, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL- contract for provision of services- no reliable record provided for the reasons given orally at first instance- both parties at fault-whether deposit should be retained or returned in full or in part- other claims for compensation. |
Swedzah Pty Ltd v Moama Waters Providore Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 90 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S De Jersey, Principal Member; M Deane, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – internal appeal under s80 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 as of right “on any question of law” - questions of law – “no evidence” – “unreasonableness” – procedural fairness – extension of time – whether to grant leave to extend time – whether reasonable chance of success. |
He v Zhang [2025] NSWCATAP 91 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Charles, Senior Member; R Dubler SC, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES – residential tenancy – landlord’s claim for end of tenancy compensation and payment of rental bond dismissed APPEALS – whether decision against weight of evidence – whether decision not fair and equitable – whether there is significant new evidence not reasonably available – leave to appeal refused – no issue of principle |
|
Prestige Homez Pty Ltd v Ghag [2025] NSWCATAP 93 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division - Home Building Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President; J Redfern, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – costs – r 38 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) - proceedings settled by consent orders – no hearing on the merits – applicable costs principles |
Zhen v Yan [2025] NSWCATAP 94 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; G Ellis SC, Senior Member Catchwords: LANDLORD AND TENANT – residential tenancy – s 115 Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – whether notice of termination was retaliatory APPEAL – procedural fairness alleged but not established – all other grounds of appeal only raised questions of fact – no plain error established and not shown that Tribunal’s factual conclusions were more than arguably wrong |
|
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. |
