NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest Issue 4 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 April 2026: |
YQV v YRK [2026] NSWCATAP 101 (GD): An Appeal Panel allowed an appeal on the basis that when NCAT appointed the Public Guardian as enduring guardian, it did not consider the appellant’s request to continue in her role as enduring guardian, and therefore denied her procedural fairness.
|
Higgins v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 105 (AEOD): An Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division (AEOD), concluding that an agency’s onus to establish that its decision is justified under s 105 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW), does not require it to adduce evidence to disprove an applicant’s allegation that disclosure could have reasonably been expected to establish that an officer acted unlawfully.
|
Thomet v Butcher [2026] NSWCATAP 115 (CCD): An Appeal Panel upheld an appeal from NCAT’s Consumer and Commercial Division (CCD) on the basis that NCAT failed to afford the appellant procedural fairness by conducting the hearing in his absence, and not making inquiries as to his whereabouts, knowledge of or involvement in the proceedings.
|
City of Parramatta Council v Hardiman [2026] NSWCATAP 132 (AEOD): An Appeal Panel allowed an appeal from NCAT’s Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division (AEOD) which found the appellant had contravened s 49M(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (A-D Act), based on the fact that the appellant was denied procedural fairness in not being given the opportunity to make closing submissions.
|
Kensington Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v McMullen [2026] NSWCATAP 139 (CCD): A decision from NCAT’s Consumer and Commercial Division (CCD) was appealed on the basis that the appellant was not accorded procedural fairness and that NCAT failed to make appropriate deductions to the money order. An Appeal Panel allowed the appeal on both grounds, replacing a money order of $145,423.44 with one in the sum of $45,216.86.
|
Each case title is hyperlinked to the full decision available on NSW Caselaw. |
|
|
1. Did NCAT constructively fail to exercise its jurisdiction because it failed to address an essential matter under s 15(3) of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW)? |
YQV v YRK [2026] NSWCATAP 101
Appeal from the Guardianship Division A Britton, Deputy President; A R Boxall, Senior Member; C M Kennedy, Senior Member
In sum: The appellant (YQV) and her Sister (YRK) had previously been appointed by their Mother (the Mother) as her enduring guardians. However, after a dispute arose between the appellant and the Sister, the Local Health District (LHD) applied to NCAT’s Guardianship Division to have the Public Guardian be appointed as enduring guardian instead. The appellant appealed NCAT’s decision on the basis that NCAT did not consider her request to continue to be enduring guardian. The appeal was allowed.
Facts: In January 2025, the Mother (then 85-years-old) appointed her two daughters, the appellant and the Sister, as her enduring guardians. In September 2025, NCAT made a guardianship order appointing the NSW Public Guardian to act as the Mother’s guardian, suspending the daughters’ appointment. The appellant subsequently appealed this decision, contending that to appoint the Public Guardian to act as the Mother’s guardian, NCAT was first required to consider the appellant’s request to be appointed as guardian, and that it failed to do so which amounted to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction.
The LHD’s initial application to NCAT was based on a dispute between the appellant and the Sister over whether the Mother should move to residential aged care and, if so, which facility. The LHD claimed that this dispute resulted in the Mother remaining in hospital for an extended period and suffering unnecessary distress, and as such, the daughters’ appointment was “ineffective” and appeared to “not be working”. While the Sister supported NCAT’s decision to appoint the Public Guardian, she conceded that the appellant had requested appointment as guardian and did not indicate otherwise at the hearing.
Held (allowing the appeal):
(i) Constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction arises where a decision-maker purports to have exercised the jurisdiction but in substance has not undertaken or completed the task of doing so because of failure to address some essential matter: Ming v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2022] NSWCA 209 at [15]. Here the essential matter the appellant asserts NCAT failed to address was whether “another person [apart from the Public Guardian] can be appointed as the guardian”: Guardianship Act 1987, s 15(3).
(ii) It was clear that NCAT was aware that the appellant and the Sister each requested to be appointed as the Mother’s guardian, but at no point during the hearing did NCAT expressly ask the appellant whether she no longer wanted to be appointed. The closest that question came to being asked is during an exchange where NCAT asked, “Do you think at the moment there needs to be a third party?”, to which the appellant replied, “Definitely. Definitely I am happy with that”. Read in context, that answer was capable of several meanings.
(iii) Whether the appellant “would be prepared to accept the appointment of an independent guardian”, did not relieve NCAT from the obligation to consider whether “an order can be made appointing some other person [apart from the Public Guardian] as the guardian of [the Mother]”. A person may be willing to be appointed as guardian, and at the same time be prepared to accept the appointment of the Public Guardian, if the person’s request to be appointed was unsuccessful. The two are not mutually exclusive.
(iv) In circumstances where the appellant had requested appointment as guardian and did not withdraw that request, NCAT was obliged to consider whether an order could be made appointing the appellant as guardian. That, in turn, required NCAT to decide whether it was satisfied that the appellant met the criteria for appointment in s 17(1) of the Guardianship Act 1987.
(v) NCAT’s failure to consider the appellant’s request constituted a constructive failure to exercise its jurisdiction. That failure was material. As such, the appeal was allowed and was remitted to NCAT for consideration as to whether an order can be made appointing the appellant as guardian of the Mother. |
2. To what extent (if any) does an agency’s onus to justify its decision under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) require it to disprove elements of an applicant’s case? |
Higgins v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 105
Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Dr J Lucy, Principal Member; C Mulvey, Senior Member
In sum: An Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division (AEOD), concluding that an agency’s onus to establish that its decision is justified under s 105 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW), does not require it to adduce evidence to disprove an applicant’s allegation that disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to establish that an officer acted unlawfully.
Facts: The appellant (Mr Higgins) was concerned about the lawfulness of a direction given to him by a police officer, requiring him to drive, under police lights, to the nearest town. He applied for the body-worn video footage of the incident. The respondent (the Commissioner of Police) (“the Commissioner”) decided that there was an overriding public interest against giving the appellant a copy of the footage and decided instead to give him view-only access.
The appellant applied to NCAT for review of this decision, seeking a copy of the body-worn video footage. He argued that a public interest consideration in favour of disclosure of the footage was that disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal or substantiate that the police officer had engaged in improper or unlawful conduct because he had no authority to make the direction. NCAT rejected this submission.
The appellant appealed NCAT’s decision, submitting that NCAT failed to correctly apply s 105 of the GIPA Act by shifting the onus of proof to the applicant to show that the Commissioner’s decision was not justified.
Held (refusing the appeal):
(i) The respondent’s burden, under s 105(1) of the GIPA Act, of establishing that the decision under review is justified, is directed to establishing, as a matter of fact, that the public interest considerations against disclosure outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure (GIPA Act, ss 9(1), 13).
(ii) The burden imposed upon an agency by s 105(1) of the GIPA Act does not require an agency to disprove any proposition put forward by an applicant in support of an asserted public interest consideration in favour of disclosure. Rather, the agency bears the burden of persuading NCAT that the weight of public interest considerations is against disclosure.
(iii) NCAT was correct to conclude that, even though the respondent did not positively prove the lawfulness of the officer’s conduct, NCAT was not required to infer that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal or substantiate that the officer had engaged in unlawful conduct.
(iv) That conclusion is consistent with the Appeal Panel’s observations about the onus imposed by s 105 of the GIPA Act in Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173 (Wojciechowska) at [35] and McNeill v Clarence Valley Council [2025] NSWCATAP 184 (McNeill) at [65]-[66]. In both of those cases, the Appeal Panel held that NCAT had misapplied the onus under s 105 of the GIPA Act by effectively requiring an applicant to establish that there were reasonable grounds to believe that information the subject of an access application existed, in circumstances where an agency decided it did not hold that information.
(v) By contrast, in this case, the question was whether s 105 of the GIPA Act requires an agency to provide evidence to disprove an inference drawn by an applicant from established facts. The Panel concluded that s 105 does not have that effect.
(vi) The appeal was dismissed, with no errors found in NCAT’s decision. |
3. Did NCAT fail to afford procedural fairness by proceeding in the absence of a party and failing to turn its mind to whether it could or should proceed under r 35 of the NCAT Rules? |
Thomet v Butcher [2026] NSWCATAP 115
Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division J Redfern PSM, Senior Member; N Kennedy, Senior Member
In sum: The appellant appealed a decision from NCAT’s Consumer and Commercial Division (CCD) where he was ordered to pay the respondent damages under ss 60 and 61 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW) (ACL), in respect of alleged defective repairs to the respondent’s vehicle. An Appeal Panel upheld the appeal on the basis that NCAT failed to afford the appellant procedural fairness by conducting the hearing in his absence, and not making inquiries as to his whereabouts, knowledge of or involvement in the proceedings.
Facts: In September 2024, the respondent delivered his vehicle to the appellant for urgent repair, and the appellant replaced the turbocharger (with a new one supplied by the respondent) and returned it to the respondent a few days later. The vehicle started to blow smoke and the timing chain (a component of the engine) subsequently failed, causing damage to the motor vehicle. The appellant refused to repair the damage at no cost to the respondent because the appellant denied liability for the damages claimed. The respondent commenced proceedings in NCAT in December 2024 claiming $19,982 in damages. NCAT heard the matter in the absence of the appellant. NCAT ordered the appellant (a mechanic repairer) to pay the respondent $10,300 in respect of alleged defective repairs to his vehicle.
The appellant claims that the first time he had notice of the hearing, and the orders made on 6 June 2025, was on 28 October 2025 when he received a letter from the Sheriff's Office about the recovery of the money order made by NCAT. He lodged an appeal of the decision on 19 November 2025 after he was emailed a copy of the decision by NCAT, following a telephone enquiry to the Registry on or after 28 October 2025. The appellant contended that the decision was not fair and equitable because he did not have the opportunity to defend the claim made or to present his case because he did not receive notice of the hearing or the decision. Regarding the original dispute, the appellant then claimed that he told the respondent the timing chain required replacement (at a cost of $1,300) but that the respondent said he could not afford this and took the car of his own free will.
Held (allowing the appeal):
(i) The Panel accepted the appellant’s evidence that he did not receive notice of the decision until just after 28 October 2025. The appellant therefore did not require an extension of time to lodge his appeal, which was lodged within 28 days from the day on which the appellant was notified (r 25(4)(c) of the NCAT Rules).
(ii) NCAT’s decision did not disclose the basis for it proceeding in the absence of the appellant. It made no reference to r 35 of the NCAT Rules or to whether NCAT was satisfied that notice of the hearing had been served or had considered that justice required the matter proceed in the absence of a party.
(iii) While it was difficult to understand how the appellant did not receive the notice or decision at his business address (which was the same one he used in the appeal proceedings), the respondent gave no evidence to the contrary and NCAT did not make any inquiries on the issue. There was similarly no evidence of NCAT turning its mind to the question of whether it could or should proceed under r 35 of the NCAT Rules.
(iv) The Panel was satisfied that if the appellant had attended the hearing and presented his case there was possibility of a different outcome. This was not a case where the critical facts were not in contest or where the documents provided by the respondent were incontestable and compelled a conclusion in support of the respondent’s case at first instance.
(v) The appellant was not afforded procedural fairness because the Panel was not satisfied that the hearing should have proceeded in the circumstances. The Panel allowed the appeal, set aside the decision and remitted the proceedings to NCAT for reconsideration. |
4. Did NCAT fail to afford the appellant procedural fairness by not giving the appellant an opportunity to make closing submissions? |
City of Parramatta Council v Hardiman [2026] NSWCATAP 132
Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; J Redfern, senior Member
In sum: The appellant successfully appealed a decision of NCAT’s Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division (AEOD), which held that the appellant had discriminated against the respondent in contravention of s 49M(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (A-D Act). The appeal was based on the fact that the appellant was denied the opportunity to make closing submissions, and that this denied him procedural fairness, being an error on a question of law.
Facts: NCAT had held that the City of Parramatta Council (the Council) (the appellant) discriminated against Pamela Hardiman (the respondent) in contravention of s 49M(1)(b) of the A-D Act. In the first instance decision, the key issue was whether the Council discriminated against Ms Hardiman in the provision of services, namely, access to a reserve within its local government area. It was an uncontroversial matter before NCAT that the respondent has a disability. NCAT found the Council had discriminated against the respondent. The decision was appealed on the basis that NCAT failed to accord procedural fairness to the Council by failing to give it an opportunity to make closing submissions.
Held (allowing the appeal):
(i) The failure of NCAT to give the Council an opportunity to make oral and/or written closing submissions constituted a failure to accord procedural fairness which is a question of law.
(ii) This failure was material in the sense that there was a realistic possibility that the decision could have been different if the error had not occurred. The Panel noted, for example, that evidence referred to in the notice of appeal was not referred to in the first instance decision. As mentioned by the High Court in LPDT, meeting this threshold is not demanding or onerous.
(iii) The Panel allowed the appeal, set aside the decision and remitted the proceedings to NCAT for reconsideration. |
5. Did NCAT fail to accord the appellant procedural fairness by not addressing a key point made in closing submissions, and did it incorrectly calculate the money order in favour of the respondent? |
Kensington Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v McMullen [2026] NSWCATAP 139
Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; Dr D Goldman, Senior Member
In sum: The appellant company appealed a decision from NCAT’s Consumer and Commercial Division (CCD) on the basis that it was not accorded procedural fairness and that NCAT failed to make appropriate deductions to a money order. An Appeal Panel allowed the appeal on both grounds and NCAT’s money order of $145,423.44 was replaced with one in the sum of $45,216.86.
Facts: The appeal concerns a dispute between the first to third respondents (the McMullen family) who own a property in NSW and the appellant, Kensington Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd (Kensington Homes), who carried out residential building work at the property under a building contract between them (the building contract). NCAT made a money order of $145,423.44 in favour of the McMullen family including $144,058.44 for the cost of the rectification and completion of defective and incomplete works.
The decision was appealed on the basis that NCAT failed to accord procedural fairness to Kensington Homes or constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction by failing to consider the appellant’s submission that the balance of the contract price payable should be deducted from any damages after adding the value of any incomplete works.
Held (allowing the appeal):
(i) NCAT did not address the balance of contract price submissions which were clearly articulated in Kensington Homes’ closing submissions. Instead, NCAT simply provided the classic statement from Robinson v Harman (1884) 1 Exch 850 at 855; 154 ER 363 at 365 with respect to damages at common law for breach of contract cited in JKN at [67]. This omission meant NCAT failed to accord procedural fairness to Kensington Homes or constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction.
(ii) The Panel did not agree that Woodward Pty Limited v Kelleher [1989] NSWCA 82 was authority for a qualification to the measure of damages recoverable by an owner for breach of a building contract, which requires the deduction of the unpaid contract balance where the contract is repudiated by the builder. The general principle of measurement of damages for breach of contract does not mean that the proprietor was entitled to have the building erected for nothing. The Panel was therefore satisfied that NCAT should have deducted the unpaid balance owing under the building contract. Without such a deduction, the order would include a credit for the cost of incomplete work.
(iii) The appeal was allowed due to NCAT’s failures to both accord the appellant procedural fairness, and make a deduction from the money order in favour of the McMullen family. The Panel set aside the money order, and in accordance with the agreement of the parties ordered that in its place the McMullen family pay $45,216.86 to Kensington Homes (with no order as to the costs of the appeal). |
|
|
|
Hall v The Owners - Strata Plan No 31934 [2026] NSWCATAP 98 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 |
Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Nova Security Group Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 99 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: Seiden SC DCJ, Deputy President; J Redfern PSM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Tax and duties – Payroll tax – Employment agency contract – Application of Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Integrated Trolley Management Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 302 – Whether the Tribunal erred on a question of law in its approach to the statutory question under s 37 of the Payroll Tax Act 2007 (NSW) |
Garside v Coffey (No 2) [2026] NSWCATAP 100 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: E Bishop SC, Senior Member; H Woods, Senior Member Catchwords: COSTS — costs at first instance — whether first instance costs order should be reversed following a successful appeal |
YQV v YRK [2026] NSWCATAP 101 Appeal from the Guardianship Division Decision of: A Britton, Deputy President; A R Boxall, Senior Member; C M Kennedy, Senior Member Catchwords: NCAT — Internal Appeals — constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction — whether in appointing NSW Public Guardian Tribunal failed to consider whether “an order can be made appointing some other person as the guardian of the person”, Guardianship Act 1987(NSW), s 15(3) STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — Guardianship Act 1987(NSW) — operation of ss 15(3) and 17(1) |
|
E-Synergies.Com Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAP 103 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: Seiden SC DCJ, Deputy President; J Redfern PSM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL — Review under Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW) — Land tax — Primary production exemption — Dominant purpose — Where multiple purposes of land APPEALS — Materiality of error APPEALS — Procedure — Parties on appeal — Unrepresented litigants STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — Principle of legality — Onus of proof — Power to issue retrospective assessment |
Shafei v Cervello [2026] NSWCATAP 104 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Robertson, Principal Member Catchwords: COSTS – Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, s 60 – whether there are special circumstances warranting an award of costs –– no special circumstances – no costs awarded |
Higgins v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 105 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: Dr J Lucy, Principal Member; C Mulvey, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – meaning of an appeal on a “question of law” – whether a question of law may include a question of mixed fact and law – freedom of information – whether the Tribunal misapplied the onus in the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 – consideration of operation of onus in relation to claimed public interest consideration in favour of disclosure – whether the Tribunal wrongly concluded that it would deny the respondent procedural fairness by conducting its own inquiries into subject matter of claimed public interest consideration in favour of disclosure – whether the Tribunal erred by failing to draw an inference in accordance with the principles in Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 |
JE Flaherty and DC McMullen t/as DM Construct v King [2026] NSWCATAP 106 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; D Charles, Senior Member Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – where contract for residential building work not in writing pursuant to Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – where Tribunal upheld builders claim in quantum meruit – where Tribunal upheld homeowners cross-application for damages for defective building work – whether decision of Tribunal on cross-application based on material errors of fact – whether Tribunal failed to adequately expose the process of reasoning leading to its decision – whether Appeal Panel should re-exercise original jurisdiction or remit proceedings for re-hearing by Tribunal – whether ambit of re-hearing should be limited to determination of builders liability for alleged defective work |
Simpson v Torning [2026] NSWCATAP 107 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 |
Murgoski v Playsafe Fencing Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 108 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: N Kennedy, Senior Member; M Tyson, 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 |
Bruce v Myakuna Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 109 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G K Burton SC, Senior Member; Dr D Goldman, Senior Member Catchwords: LAND LAW – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – claims for alleged breaches of landlord maintenance obligations and loss of quiet enjoyment – limitation period for money claims – extension of time - construction of tenancy agreement, advertisement and incoming condition report - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) s 190, Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW) reg 39(9), Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2010 (NSW) s 41 |
Swain v City of Parramatta Council [2026] NSWCATAP 110 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEALS – reinstatement application – principles – application dismissed CIVIL PROCEDURE – Suppression and non-publication – application by appellant to have publication of decision restricted or her name and any identifying details anonymised –application dismissed |
Xu v Naganath [2026] NSWCATAP 111 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: DAC Robertson, Principal Member; K Merrick, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) s 165 — Claims against the rental bond — Breach by landlord of s 165 of the Residential Tenancies Act through failure to provide documents supporting the landlord’s claim on the bond — Where bond paid to landlord, the landlord’s failure to comply with s 165 does not prevent the landlord relying upon claims in respect of unpaid rent, utilities charges or damage to the premises as a defence to a claim by the tenant for repayment of the bond |
Rosen v Louey [2026] NSWCATAP 112 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: J Redfern PSM, Senior Member; N Kennedy, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL − residential tenancy – ex parte hearing in the absence of a party – denial of procedural fairness claimed because the Tribunal did not consider material filed – no error on question of law |
Stewart v Masterpiece Caravans Pty Ltd & Anor [2026] NSWCATAP 113 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; S Hennings, Senior member Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW-remedies for non-compliance with guarantee of acceptable quality – whether notice of rejection given to supplier – whether notice of rejection given within rejection period – whether “damage” to caravan precluded rejection- whether Tribunal could make an order for repairs. APPEAL –appellant relied on alleged errors of law only – no material errors of law established. |
Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 114 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: K Robinson, Principal Member; J Sullivan, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – access to information - questions of law - leave – administrative review - hearing dispensed with - procedural fairness – bias – discharge of onus – no requirement to call witness nor provide specified documents – no error as to jurisdiction – no exercise of judicial power - appeal dismissed |
Thomet v Butcher [2026] NSWCATAP 115 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: J Redfern PSM, Senior Member; N Kennedy, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – motor vehicle repair – Australian Consumer Law claim – claim determined in the absence of a party – no opportunity to defend the claim – failure to give reasons for the exercise of discretion to proceed – denial of procedural fairness |
International Minerals Group Pty Ltd v Amir Elleissy [2026] NSWCATAP 116 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: M Tyson, Senior Member; H Woods, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES – rights and obligations of landlords and tenants – excessive rent due to withdrawal or reduction in goods, services and facilities provided with residential premises – determination of excessive rent – reduction of rent on frustration of residential tenancy agreement APPEAL – question of law – whether reasons adequate |
Chan v NSW Land & Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 117 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; R Bailey, Senior Member Catchwords: Appeal – appeal against the dismissal of a set aside application made under cl 9 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation – no evidence that the Appellant’s absence resulted in his case not being adequately put – no error of law |
Fenech v Cox [2026] NSWCATAP 118 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: M Tibbey, Senior Member; D Goldstein, Senior Member Catchwords: Residential Tenancies |
Galliott v The Owners – Strata Plan No 43251 [2026] NSWCATAP 119 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 appellants – no hearing on the merits – costs application dismissed |
Khan v Kallias [2026] NSWCATAP 120 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G K Burton SC, Senior Member; Dr K George, Senior Member Catchwords: LAND LAW – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – complaints that premises uninhabitable – immediate termination – claimed misleading conduct that represented premises were ready for occupation – break fee - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) ss 26, 103, 104, 107 |
Hawkins v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 121 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: J Redfern PSM, Senior Member; P Durack SC, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL − residential tenancy – termination of long-standing social housing tenancy because of failure to comply with cleanliness obligations – persistent breaches alleged – new evidence about steps taken after the hearing – whether the appellant may suffer a substantial miscarriage of justice – whether significant new evidence |
Ng v Eulbertie Investments Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 122 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: H Woods, Senior Member; M Tyson, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Rent APPEALS — Procedural fairness — Bias or apprehension of bias APPEALS — Procedure — Proof and evidence — Record of court or tribunal below |
MacGregor v Southern Cross Community Housing Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 123 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: Dr K M George, Senior Member; M Tibbey, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – termination for non-payment of rent - transcript or sound recording not provided - leave to appeal refused |
|
|
Shorter v Friend [2026] NSWCATAP 126 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President Catchwords: LEASES AND TEANANCIES – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – retaliatory notice – s 115 Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – whether correct legal principle applied – quiet enjoyment – s 50 Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – whether correct legal principles applied – no error on a question of law established – leave to appeal not established |
Star Training Academy Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 127 Appeal from the Occupational Division Decision of: Seiden SC DCJ, Deputy President; G Blake AM SC, Principal Member Catchwords: appeals –– administrative review –– security industry licence –– revocation of licence –– whether appellant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence –– whether contrary to public interest for appellant to hold a licence –– question of law –– leave to appeal |
|
|
Huo v The Owners-Strata Plan No. 44652 (No. 2) [2026] NSWCATAP 130 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President Catchwords: COSTS – s 60 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2015 (NSW) – reinstatement proceedings – s 55(2) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – whether special circumstances established sufficient to warrant a costs order |
Ojala v Haslmayer [2026] NSWCATAP 131 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Ziegler, Senior Member; H Woods, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – whether there was a failure to afford procedural fairness – whether the decision was against the weight of evidence. EVIDENCE — whether finding was against the weight of evidence — approach to drawing permissible inferences. |
City of Parramatta Council v Hardiman [2026] NSWCATAP 132 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; J Redfern, senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS - Procedural fairness - Hearing rule – Principles - Failure to give party an opportunity to make closing submissions |
Horan v The Owners-Strata Plan No 68307 (No 3) [2026] NSWCATAP 133 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President Catchwords: APPEALS – internal appeals – jurisdiction- application to appeal or vary costs orders of the Tribunal at first instance – no Appeal Panel jurisdiction to make the orders sought |
Shao v Wu [2026] NSWCATAP 134 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G K Burton SC, Senior Member; A R Boxall, Senior Member Catchwords: LAND LAW – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – claim by landlord for rent arrears and occupation fee after date of termination – date on which landlord’s mortgagee took possession or otherwise became entitled to rent not established - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) s 122 |
Enterprise Motors NSW Pty Ltd v Sweeney [2026] NSWCATAP 135 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Robertson, Principal Member; M Tyson, Senior Member Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – Consumer guarantees –Supply of goods – Guarantee as to acceptable quality – Guarantee as to fitness for disclosed purpose CIVIL PROCEDURE – NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Appeal on a question of law – Whether adequacy of reasons raises a question of law – Whether no evidence for a finding critical to the decision |
YGM v YGN (No 3) [2026] NSWCATAP 136 Appeal from the Guardianship Division Decision of: A Britton, Deputy President Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — application to correct reasons for decision — s 63 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) |
Community Association DP 270580 v Neighbourhood Association 286149 [2026] NSWCATAP 137 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; G K Burton SC, Senior Member Catchwords: LAND LAW – COMMUNITY SCHEMES – application for appointment of compulsory managing agent – proper parties - standing to make application – dismissal for lack of due despatch (want of prosecution) – inadequate explanation for delay of years in appealing – poor prospects of appeal – extension of time to appeal refused - Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2010 (NSW) s 41, Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) r 13 |
The Owners – Strata Plan No 865 v Carroll (No 2) [2026] NSWCATAP 138 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President; G K Burton SC, Senior Member Catchwords: COSTS – respondent successful in the appeal - Calderbank offer – whether indemnity costs order should be made – Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) rr 38, 38A |
Kensington Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd v McMullen [2026] NSWCATAP 139 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; Dr D Goldman, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS — Constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction — Failure to address a material issue and material evidence APPEALS — Procedural fairness — Failure to address a material issue and material evidence BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION - Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – repudiation by the builder – measure and assessment of damages - calculation of damages |
|
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. |
