NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest Issue 6 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 June 2026: |
Georgis v Berry [2026] NSWCATAP 185: An Appeal Panel allowed an appeal from NCAT’s Consumer and Commercial Division (CCD) as NCAT erred on a question of law when it found that the appellant breached a consumer guarantee under s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This was because the remedy issued (a refund) is one that is only available where, in addition to breach, NCAT makes a finding that either the breach could not be remedied or that it was a “major failure”, and in this decision neither finding was made. The orders were amended such that the respondent did not receive the $7,000 refund.
|
|
YTJ v South Western Sydney Local Health District, Public Guardian and NSW Trustee and Guardian [2026] NSWCATAP 192: An Appeal Panel allowed an appeal from NCAT’s Guardianship Division (GD). NCAT erred (on a question of law) by finding the appellant incapable of managing YTJ’s affairs on the basis that the appellant had mismanaged his NDIS package, when at no time did the appellant have control of the management of YTJ’s NDIS funding. NCAT also failed to give adequate reasons for its decision and as such, the appeal was allowed and remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for reconsideration.
|
Aouli v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 171: An Appeal Panel allowed an appeal from NCAT’s Consumer and Commercial Division (CCD), finding that NCAT erred on questions of law when it accepted that the appellant’s daughter had authority to act on behalf of the appellant. This incorrect assessment of the appellant’s daughter’s authority resulted in NCAT issuing consent orders which were not consented to (an error as to jurisdiction).
|
Each case title is hyperlinked to the full decision available on NSW Caselaw. |
|
|
1. Did NCAT err when it accepted that the appellant’s daughter had authority to consent to orders on the appellant’s behalf? If so, did this result in NCAT issuing orders which were not in fact consented to? |
Aouli v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 171 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division D A C Robertson, Principal Member; N Kennedy, Senior Member
In sum: An Appeal Panel allowed an appeal from NCAT’s Consumer and Commercial Division (CCD) as NCAT made two errors on questions of law. First, NCAT incorrectly interpreted the consent document provided by the appellant as constituting authority for the appellant’s daughter to act on behalf of the appellant. Secondly, the Panel concluded that in subsequently making orders which had not been consented to, NCAT exceeded its jurisdiction and did not have the power to make the consent orders.
Facts: In the first instance NCAT proceedings, the respondent (NSW Land and Housing Corporation) sought orders for the termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises under s 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (RT Act). This was based on its claim that the premises had become wholly or partially uninhabitable for reasons other than a breach of the residential tenancy agreement.
The appellant appealed the decision contending that NCAT made consent orders without her consent when it accepted the appellant’s daughter had authority to appear on the appellant’s behalf. The Panel understood this submission to be that NCAT erred in making orders on the basis that the appellant consented in circumstances where NCAT did not have any material by reference to which, properly understood, the appellant’s consent to the orders made was established. The key ground of appeal was therefore whether NCAT correctly assessed the meaning and effect of the ‘authority to act’ document, and whether NCAT otherwise had sufficient basis to conclude that the person purporting to appear as the appellant’s representative had appropriate authority to appear on the appellant’s behalf and enter into consent orders.
Held (allowing the appeal):
(i) It was appropriate to extend the time for filing the Notice of Appeal.
(ii) The next issue was whether NCAT was in error in making consent orders pursuant to s 59 of the NCAT Act i.e., there was no true consent by the appellant. The power to make orders giving effect to the settlement agreement must satisfy two criteria: (1) the parties have agreed on the terms of the settlement agreement and (2) NCAT is satisfied that it has the power to make a decision consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement. The Panel concluded that the consent document did not constitute authority for the appellant to be represented or for consent to orders being given. The requirements of s 59 of the NCAT Act were therefore not met and NCAT made an error on a question of law.
(iii) The Panel noted that NCAT’s orders did not contain an order for leave for the appellant to be represented, and no such order was reflected in the transcript. Section 45(b)(i) of the NCAT Act provides that a party to NCAT proceedings “may be represented by another person only if the Tribunal grants leave for that person to represent the party”. The only mention of consent in the transcript was when the appellant stated that she had “filled out a general consent to share information” form. There was no reference in the transcript to whether leave for representation was granted or the reasons for doing so, and there was no order or written reasons in relation to leave for representation being granted.
(iv) Instead, the form mentioned by the appellant was “clearly constrained to the arrangements shown on the form” i.e., it was an authority conferred by the appellant on her daughter to act on her behalf in relation to “assisting in obtaining or maintaining accommodation or support”. Terminating a tenancy in a legal forum, such as in NCAT, does not fall within this definition and is therefore beyond the scope of the consent given. At no stage did the form identify that it would apply to representation in legal proceedings before NCAT.
(v) The respondent tried to argue that the consent document showed “clear authority to act on behalf of the appellant in Tribunal proceedings and authority to enter into legally binding consent orders” but did not “identify any legal authority in support of this submission”.
(vi) The second error on a question of law was the resultant circumstance whereby NCAT made orders purportedly by consent where the appellant had not been asked if she consented to the orders, and did not consent to them. NCAT therefore purported to exercise jurisdiction which it did not have.
(vii) These errors were material and the appeal was allowed and proceedings were remitted to the CCD. |
2. Did NCAT err on a question of law when it issued the respondents a refund for breach of s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law? |
Georgis v Berry [2026] NSWCATAP 185
Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division S De Jersey, Principal Member; K Merrick, Senior Member
In sum: An Appeal Panel allowed an appeal from NCAT’s Consumer and Commercial Division (CCD) as there was an error on a question of law at first instance. NCAT found that while the contractor (the appellant) breached a consumer guarantee under s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), NCAT failed to make a finding that either the failure could not be remedied or that the failure was a “major failure”. This was a material consideration because the remedy (a refund) is one that is only available if there is also a finding that the relevant failure cannot be remedied or is a “major failure”. The orders were amended such that the respondent (a homeowner) did not receive the $7,000 refund.
Facts: The NCAT proceedings at first instance concerned a dispute between the parties arising from an oral contract for internal painting work. The contractor filed an application seeking to be paid unpaid monies by the homeowner in the sum of $2,350. The homeowner also filed an NCAT application against the contractor seeking a money order for $12,650 as a refund of all payments made to the contractor and compensation for damages caused to the property by the contractor. NCAT originally dismissed the contractor’s proceedings and ordered the contractor to pay the homeowner $11,800. The contractor appealed NCAT’s decision and sought the refund component ($7,000) of the $11,8000 be set aside and for the compensation amount ($4,800) to be set aside or, in the alternative, itemised. The contractor also sought the homeowner to pay his claim of $2,350.
The Panel highlighted three (of the 20 grounds raised) grounds of appeal which raised questions of law. First, a denial of procedural fairness. Secondly, a failure to consider a material issue (namely, whether there was a major failure under s 267 of the ACL) and thirdly, inadequate reasons.
Held (allowing the appeal in part):
(i) The contractor did not establish a failure by the Member to afford him procedural fairness. While it was clear from the transcript that the Member from time to time interjected the appellant, this is common and is not necessarily indicative of a lack of procedural fairness. It would only have been an error if the Member failed to give a party a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
(ii) On the second ground, the contractor contended that the remedy of a refund of monies paid by him would only have been available to a consumer under s 267 of the ACL if there was a finding of a “major failure” of the consumer guarantee and that NCAT made no such finding (which he alleged was an error on a question of law). In relation to damages component NCAT was correct in its application of s 267(4) as this section does not require NCAT to find either that the failure was not able to be remedied or that it was a major failure. Rather, the right to recover damages under s 267(4) applies irrespective of whether or not the failure was major. There was therefore no error on a question of law in this regard.
(iii) However, s 267(3) provides that a refund order by way of compensation may only be made where the failure to comply with the guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure. NCAT found on the balance of probabilities that the contractor had breached the consumer guarantee in s 60 of the ACL but it did not make a finding that either the failure could not be remedied or that the failure was a major failure. This was a material consideration because the remedy was only available in either of those circumstances. As such, there was an error on a question of law and the appeal was allowed in relation to this part of the money order (the $7,000 refund). Order 2 was therefore varied from $11,800 to $4,800. |
3. Did NCAT fail to afford the appellant procedural fairness? If so, upon reconsideration of the matter, were the orders at first instance correct? |
HDC v TAFE NSW [2026] NSWCATAP 190
Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division K Robinson, Principal Member; C Mulvey, Principal Member
In sum: An Appeal Panel allowed an appeal from NCAT’s Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division because NCAT failed to afford the appellant procedural fairness. The Panel then reconsidered the matter and found that the damages awarded were incorrect and so ordered the respondent to pay additional funds to the appellant.
Facts: In early 2025 the appellant was enrolled as a student with the respondent. In February 2025, the appellant’s teacher collected student email addresses for the purpose of sending group emails to students with classwork and correspondence. The appellant provided his personal email address to his teacher rather than his TAFE NSW email address. In March 2025 the appellant’s classroom teacher sent an email for an assessment task to the student group but also sent the email, in error, to a TAFE NSW staff email account that included 419 staff members (the privacy breach). Additionally, in March 2025 the appellant accessed the respondent’s guest Wi-Fi network.
At some point in March 2025, the appellant’s personal email account was hacked (the data breach) and resulted in severe consequences for the appellant. The appellant sought internal review with the respondent under s 53 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PIPP Act) regarding the privacy and data breaches, alleging that the respondent breached the PIPP Act by disclosing his personal email address to the student group and staff email account without his consent. Additionally, he alleged that his use of the respondent’s guest Wi-Fi network was a cause of the data breach, for which the respondent should be held responsible. The respondent’s internal review decision of July 2025 found that the appellant’s email address was not personal information and that the appellant had consented to his email being shared with the group, that the accidental sharing of this email address was subject to confidentiality obligations, and that the respondent was not responsible for the data breach.
NCAT subsequently found that the respondent breached ss 17 and 18 of the PIPP Act by sending the email to staff (the privacy breach) because the appellant’s email address could have been used to identify him and he had not consented to its disclosure to staff members. However, NCAT concluded that there was no evidence to support a finding that the appellant was a victim of an unlawful data breach as a result of using the respondent’s Wi-Fi. Finally, as to damage and loss NCAT was not satisfied that the privacy breach caused the appellant a significant psychological injury nor that the appellant suffered an exacerbation of symptoms or any economic loss. As such, NCAT ordered the respondent to provide a written apology to the appellant, pay the appellant damages of $2,000 and reimburse the appellant $142,20 for an IT consultation.
The appellant appealed NCAT’s decision on the basis that there were errors in the assessment of compensation, a failure to consider damage arising from breach and apprehended bias and a denial of procedural fairness.
Held (allowing the appeal):
(i) The appellant was not provided with any opportunity or invitation to provide oral submissions in opening or closing. NCAT provided almost no guidance to the appellant as to procedural matters relevant to the hearing and did not seek to clarify whether the self-represented appellant understood the opening submissions of the respondent’s legal representative. The appellant was not provided sufficient information about NCAT’s practice and procedures to ensure the hearing was fair. As such, the appellant was not afforded procedural fairness.
(ii) The fact that NCAT may have adopted an “ostensibly even-handed approach does not necessarily mean that procedural fairness was afforded”. Rather, procedural fairness requires attention to the circumstances of the particular party. The Panel found that the appellant was “at a disadvantage in proceedings” because NCAT denied the appellant the opportunity to properly present his case and the possibility of a more successful outcome. Therefore there was a material denial of procedural fairness.
(iii) Upon reconsideration, there was no factual basis for the expert opinion that the privacy breach was a “contributing factor” to the data breach. The Panel was consequently not satisfied that the respondent was responsible for any matters arising from any use by the appellant of the respondent’s guest Wi-Fi network and so there was no causal link between the alleged data breach and any action or inaction by the respondent. Thus, the Panel affirmed NCAT’s order regarding responsibility for the data breach.
(iv) In reconsidering the damages issue, it was clear that the privacy breach, for which the respondent was responsible, contributed to some exacerbation of the appellant’s medical condition and it was reasonable for such condition to be taken consideration. It was likely that the breach had a greater effect on the appellant than an ordinary person without that medical condition. As such, the appropriate amount of damages was redetermined, and increased to $4,000. |
4. Did NCAT make an error on a question of law when it decided not to appoint the appellant as YTJ’s guardian? |
YTJ v South Western Sydney Local Health District, Public Guardian and NSW Trustee and Guardian [2026] NSWCATAP 192
Appeal from the Guardianship Division I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; L Organ, Senior Member; M Bain, Senior Member
In sum: An Appeal Panel allowed an appeal from NCAT’s Guardianship Division (GD). NCAT erred (on a question of law) when it found that the appellant (GPL) was incapable of managing YTJ’s affairs on the basis that the appellant had mismanaged YTJ’s NDIS package, because NCAT failed to identify that at no time did the appellant have control of the management of YTJ’s NDIS funding. NCAT also failed to give adequate reasons for its decision. The appeal was allowed and remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for reconsideration.
Facts: The appellant appealed a decision made by NCAT’s Guardianship Division to appoint the Public Guardian as YTJ’s guardian and to commit his estate to the management of the NSW Trustee and Guardian (NSWTAG). YTJ was 63 years old, lived in a Department of Housing unit in suburban Sydney and was a recipient of National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) benefits. The appellant is his friend/carer. In January 2025, NCAT made a guardianship order appointing the appellant as YTJ’s guardian for 12 months. South Western Sydney Local Health District (SWSLHD) sought NCAT’s review of the guardianship order and the appointment of a financial manager for YTJ. NCAT found that SWSLHD had standing to make the application to review the guardianship order.
The issue in the appeal, however, was whether the Public Guardian or the appellant should have been appointed as YTJ’s guardian and whether the financial management order in favour of NSWTAG should have been made. The first ground of appeal asserted (and the only one the Panel believed was necessary to consider) that NCAT at first instance erred because it “mischaracterised the legal structure of an NDIA-managed NDIS plan and incorrectly attributed financial management of NDIS funds to the guardian, despite the fact that NDIA-managed funds are held and paid by the Agency [the NDIA] and are not controlled by the guardian”.
Held (allowing the appeal):
(i) NCAT took into consideration that YTJ had required “multiple hospital admissions” between November 2024 and November 2025 “due to depleted NDIS funding and limited supports in the community”. NCAT also relied on the concerns expressed by a social worker with respect to YTJ’s exhaustion of his NDIS funding and the consequences of that occurring. NCAT noted that the appellant had visited YTJ in hospital and encouraged him to take necessary medication, evidence of his need for “significant support” and assistance with “activities of daily life”. However, NCAT held that the appellant was not able to “demonstrate insight” into YTJ’s care needs and attributed the “poor management” of his NDIS package at least in part to the appellant’s management. The Panel said that the appellant’s asserted mismanagement of YTJ’s NDIS funding was afforded substantial weight by NCAT.
(ii) There was no basis to dispute the fact that at no time did the appellant have control of the management of YTJ’s NDIS funding. NCAT’s findings with respect to the management of YTJ’s NDIS package were erroneous and were material to its decision because NCAT’s other findings were insufficient to support its decision not to appoint the appellant as YTJ’s guardian.
(iii) Nothing referred to by the appellant demonstrated that NCAT erred in finding that YTJ was incapable of managing his affairs. The evidence “amply supported” NCAT’s finding and its reasons were adequately expressed. NCAT did not identify, and the Panel did not discover for itself, any evidence of an actual conflict of interest in the appellant’s management of YTJ’s finances. The only matter identified by NCAT as supporting its adverse findings regarding the appellant’s ability to manage finances was that she struggled to explain the Centrelink benefits she was receiving. The reasons for NCAT’s decision with respect to the financial management application were inadequate. The Panel noted that it was “not unmindful of the immense legal and human pressures under which the Guardianship Division of the Tribunal labours in doing its vitally important work”.
(iv) The appeal was allowed and NCAT’s orders at first instance were set aside with proceedings remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal. |
|
|
Hu v Cubic Real Estate & Sunrise 3 Investments Pty Ltd t/as ATF Sunrise 3 Investment Trust [2026] NSWCATAP 166 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; R Bailey, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – appeal against decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division that the respondent did not breach occupancy agreement by issuing a vacate notice-no error of question of law – application of cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act- no error on question of law- no other basis for leave to appeal. |
Ullah v Halabi [2026] NSWCATAP 167 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President Catchwords: APPEALS – Time period to lodge appeal – r 25 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) – extension of time required – s 41 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – whether extension of time should be granted LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW) – whether agreement was to board or lodge – no jurisdiction under Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) |
Kapapa v McCaskie [2026] NSWCATAP 168 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President Catchwords: APPEALS – Time period to lodge appeal – r 25 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) – extension of time required – s 41 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – whether extension of time should be granted LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – compensation to landlord – rent and utilities arrears – credit of bond amount – constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction |
Uphold Woo Pty Ltd v Dargan [2026] NSWCATAP 170 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President Catchwords: APPEALS – Time period to lodge appeal – r 25 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) – extension of time required – s 41 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – whether extension of time should be granted LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – oral agreement – whether residential tenancy agreement – right of occupation – relevance of fresh or further evidence |
Aouli v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 171 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D A C Robertson, Principal Member; N Kennedy, Senior Member Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Consent orders – Authority to give consent – Whether daughter of appellant who appeared at hearing and purported to consent to orders on the appellant’s behalf could so consent – Whether document giving authority to communicate with the respondent social housing provider constituted authority to represent the appellant in the Tribunal and consent to orders resolving proceedings – The absence of authority vitiated the consent purportedly given by the daughter – Orders set aside |
|
|
Ravenscroft v Arise Solar Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 174 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Hennings, Senior Member; R Alkadamani, Senior Member Catchwords: TRIBUNALS — Bias — whether party former client — whether disqualified APPEAL – whether reasons inadequate |
The Owners – Strata Plan no 85385 v Barnett (No 2) [2026] NSWCATAP 175 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; R Titterton OAM, Senior Member Catchwords: COSTS- whether costs of the appeal should be paid by the Appellant- consideration of special circumstances- Appellant unsuccessful except as to the costs order made at first instance-whether an allowance should be made in respect of a costs order to reflect the Appellants success on the issue of costs at first instance. |
Vickers v Barbagallo Consultants Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 176 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Burton SC, Senior Member; K Merrick, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — tenant claims for compensation - s.26 (misleading inducement) - s.52 (failure to provide premises fit for habitation) |
Sun v Theophilou [2026] NSWCATAP 177 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: Dr K M George, Senior Member; A Boxall, Senior Member Catchwords: COSTS - s 60 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2015 (NSW) - whether special circumstances established and sufficient to warrant a costs order |
YHY v YJB [2026] NSWCATAP 178 Appeal from the Guardianship Division Decision of: A Balla, ADCJ Principal Member; A R Boxall, Senior Member; Dr M Spencer, General Member Catchwords: APPEALS – New Evidence – Variation of Guardianship Order - Appeal Dismissed |
|
Stanhope SC Pty Ltd atf Stanhope SC Investment Trust v Sharetea Leasing Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 180 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G K Burton SC, Senior Member; K Merrick, Senior Member Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY – RETAIL LEASES – urgent interlocutory application - re-entry and demolition of premises after alleged non-compliance with notice of breach and associated contests – whether ought to be treated as having altered to final hearing by reason of parties’ submissions on matters characterised as final relief when no formalisation of that course – Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) s 72 |
Hennessey v Transport for NSW [2026] NSWCATAP 181 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: Dr K George, Senior Member; Emeritus Prof R Graycar, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – termination of residential tenancy agreement – wholly or partly uninhabitable – excessive rent – rent reduction – compensation |
Lam v Rallis Timber Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 182 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; R Alkadamani, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – late lodgment of appeal – whether time should be extended – whether appellant’s case can be described as fairly arguable |
Thompson v The Owners – Strata Plan No 31007; The Owners – Strata Plan No 31007 v Thompson [2026] NSWCATAP 183 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Robertson, Principal Member; N Kennedy, Senior Member Catchwords: LAND LAW – Strata title – Common property – Whether owners corporation liable to compensate lot owner for damage to structures erected on common property over which the lot owner has exclusive use where the damage was occasioned in the course of the owners corporation carrying out repairs or maintenance of common property – Whether trespass by the owners corporation affects its potential liability LAND LAW - Strata title – By-laws - interpretation of by-laws - Whether indemnity by lot owner in respect of liability resulting from the use of exclusive use areas extends to damage caused by the owners corporation to structures on the exclusive use areas |
Makowski v NSW Self Insurance Corporation; Mircevski v NSW Self Insurance Corporation [2026] NSWCATAP 184 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: Balla ADCJ, Principal Member; P H Molony, Senior Member Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Contract — Insurance — Home warranty – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — application to and liability of developers – meaning of owner and developer – whether tenants in common developing eight dwellings are developers - whether intention relevant to question of legal ownership – time at which an assessment of whether owners are developers is to be made |
Georgis v Berry [2026] NSWCATAP 185 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S De Jersey, Principal Member; K Merrick, Senior Member Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW - Consumer guarantees - Supply of services - Guarantee as to due care and skill - supplier’s claim to be determined under s 79O Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) - Remedies - Compensation orders - major failure of consumer guarantee |
|
Cumming v Saweres [2026] NSWCATAP 187 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: H Woods, Senior Member; J Redfern PSM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – Whether there was a failure to afford procedural fairness APPEALS – Time period to lodge appeal – whether extension of time should be granted. APPEALS — Leave to Appeal - LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential |
Cincotta v TCA Café Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 188 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; Dr D Goldman, Senior Member Catchwords: Appeal against costs order – Where Tribunal drew inferences in reliance on undisturbed findings in substantive proceedings – Whether appellants demonstrated error on question of law |
HDC v TAFE NSW [2026] NSWCATAP 190 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: K Robinson, Principal Member; C Mulvey, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEALS – privacy – question of law – procedural fairness – no opportunity for opening or closing submissions provided to self represented party - appeal allowed - reconsideration |
|
|
Lowe v Pearce [2026] NSWCATAP 193 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Charles, Principal Member; AR Boxall, Senior Member Catchwords: ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Fences and boundaries – Dividing Fences – Contribution to costs |
Mofreh Samaan v Tynan Motors [2026] NSWCATAP 194 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; R Bailey, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – appeal against a decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division dismissing an application for a new vehicle and compensation – consumer claim - no error of question of law – application of cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 - no other basis for leave to appeal – appeal lodged out of time |
Lirantzis v Calligas (No 2) [2026] NSWCATAP 195 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 – reopening after administrative error of Tribunal |
Aristidi v KWB Group Pty Ltd t/as Kitchen Connection [2026] NSWCATAP 196 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; K Merrick, Senior Member Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW — Misleading or deceptive conduct APPEALS — Nature of appeal — Functions of appellate court — Further evidence — Power to receive further evidence |
Hordpenko v Yatman [2026] NSWCATAP 197 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; D Robertson, Principal Member Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — Statutory warranty — Defences — s 18F(1)(a) — Instructions contrary to written advice CIVIL PROCEDURE — Form of orders |
Sharma v Hoque [2026] NSWCATAP 198 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Ziegler, Senior Member; H Woods, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – Time period to lodge appeal – r 25 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) – extension of time required – s 41 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – whether extension of time should be granted APPEALS — Leave to Appeal LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Repairs — Landlord’s duty – whether the duty extends to part of the premises which the landlord says is the responsibility of an owners corporation to repair |
Lake v Golf Australia Limited [2026] NSWCATAP 199 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; R Bailey, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – appeal against a decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division – whether error on question of law – application of cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 - no other basis for leave to appeals |
GSY v Western Sydney Local Health District [2026] NSWCATAP 200 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: Dr J Lucy, Principal Member; J Sullivan, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – application for recusal – principles concerning bias and apprehended bias PRIVACY – health privacy principles – whether Tribunal erred in not finding a breach of the access health privacy principle where the appellant argued that health records were missing – whether contention that respondent misled the Tribunal identifies any error – whether Tribunal denied the appellant procedural fairness in conduct of hearing – whether non-disclosure order should be made where appellant’s name anonymised in decision under appeal |
McCabe v Rosa [2026] NSWCATAP 201 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; K Merrick, Senior Member Catchwords: Appeal against orders of Consumer and Commercial Division of Tribunal - whether time to appeal should be extended - whether appellant demonstrates error on question of law - whether appellant demonstrates grounds for grant of leave to appeal - whether leave should be granted to rely on further evidence – opportunity to cross examine and procedural fairness - weight given to evidence – adequacy of reasons |
|
Alabadi v AAI Limited trading as AAMI Car Insurance [2026] NSWCATAP 203 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: Dr J Lucy, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEALS – federal jurisdiction – where respondent claims that it relied upon Commonwealth Act in its defence in an anticipatory manner - where Tribunal determined the claim without needing to determine the federal issue - whether Tribunal had jurisdiction – whether Appeal Panel has power to make orders allowing appeal and setting aside decision below on the basis of lack of jurisdiction in circumstances where this was not raised by appellant – source of power to do so |
Rahif v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 204 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: K Ransome, Principal Member; J Gatland, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – administrative review – revocation of licence – whether Tribunal erred in construction of statutory provision – whether revocation of licence mandatory – meaning of “in respect of” – no error |
McGinn v BMW Australia Sydney Pty Ltd trading as BMW Sydney [2026] NSWCATAP 205 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: H Woods, Senior Member; J Redfern PSM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Australian Consumer Law – consumer claim – no error on question of law or miscarriage of justice – findings of fact open on the evidence – leave to appeal refused – application for costs dismissed |
Chymiak v Fogg [2026] NSWCATAP 206 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; D Robertson, Principal Member Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — Statutory warranty — Due care and skill — Whether contractor carried out work with due care and skill when plans indicated that the design of a concrete slab would vary depending on the soil classification and the contractor made an assumption regarding the soil classification rather than making enquiry or requiring evidence from the homeowner CIVIL PROCEDURE — Sufficiency of evidence in Tribunal proceedings — In the absence of contrary evidence a notation of soil classification on plans for the house on a property is sufficient to establish the soil type on an adjacent area where a shed was to be constructed |
|
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. |
