NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest Issue 9 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 September 2025. |
YKL v South Western Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWCATAP 234: An Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Guardianship Division, clarifying that NCAT’s guardianship powers are protective and administrative, not judicial, and so the constitutional restriction outlined in Burns v Corbett (2017) 265 CLR 304 does not apply. The Appeal Panel also found that orders made under corresponding South Australian guardianship laws did not deprive NCAT of jurisdiction where there was evidence of sufficient territorial connection with NSW when NCAT made its orders, including in the initial application where the appellant informed NCAT that the subject-person was living with him in Sydney.
|
Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2025] NSWCATAP 225: An Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division, finding there was no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal Member failing to disqualify herself for reasonable apprehended bias. The appellant unsuccessfully submitted that the Information Commissioner’s right to appear under s 104(1) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) on an ongoing basis was at the discretion of NCAT and that, because the Information Commissioner was allegedly biased in the view of the appellant, there was an apprehension of bias on the part of NCAT. The Appeal Panel found that there was no basis to establish that the Information Commissioner had compromised her independence and that, in any event, the right to appear under s 104(1) would have been unaffected.
|
FMM v Icare NSW [2025] NSWCATAP 218: An Appeal Panel refused leave to appeal an interlocutory decision from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division, finding no error of law on the part of the Tribunal in its determination that NCAT had no jurisdiction to determine an application where a person is not “aggrieved” within the meaning of s 53 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).
|
|
|
1. Does the Guardianship Division of NCAT exercise judicial power where proceedings involve parties who are residents of different States? |
YKL v South Western Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWCATAP 234
A Britton, Deputy President; C A Mulvey, Senior Member (Legal); Dr B McPhee, Senior Member (Professional)
In sum: An Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Guardianship Division where the appellant argued that NCAT lacked jurisdiction because the subject-person (the mother) was purportedly a resident of South Australia and subject of a reviewable guardianship order made by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT). The Appeal Panel found that NCAT’s guardianship powers are protective and administrative, not judicial, and so the constitutional restriction outlined in Burns v Corbett (2017) 265 CLR 304 does not apply. Even if the mother was a South Australian resident, NCAT retained jurisdiction to make guardianship orders. The Appeal Panel also found that a reviewable guardianship order made under corresponding South Australian guardianship laws appointing the South Australian Public Advocate did not deprive NCAT of jurisdiction and that there was evidence of a sufficient territorial connection with NSW when NCAT made its orders, including in the initial application where the appellant informed NCAT that his mother was living with him in Sydney.
Facts: In January 2024, NCAT made an initial guardianship order in respect of the mother of the appellant (the mother), and the appellant (her son) as guardian (the January 2024 order). In making the initial application for guardianship, the appellant informed NCAT that his mother was living with him in Sydney, which was also recorded in hospital admission records in 2022 and 2023. In July 2024, NCAT reviewed the January 2024 order at the request of the South Western Sydney Local Health District (the Local Health District) and appointed the NSW Public Guardian as the mother’s guardian (the July 2024 order).
In October 2024, the mother was discharged from Bankstown Hospital to an aged care facility. After 4 days at that facility, the appellant removed his mother and drove her to Adelaide without the consent of the NSW Public Guardian. The NSW Public Guardian made an application to SACAT and on 19 December 2024, SACAT appointed the SA Public Advocate (the SA equivalent of the NSW Public Guardian) as guardian under a reviewable guardianship order. The appellant apparently drove the mother back to Sydney about 3 weeks before the SACAT hearing.
On 24 December 2024, at the request of the NSW Public Guardian, NSW Police attended the appellant’s NSW home in Sydney to check on the mother’s welfare and, at the request of the NSW Police, the mother was transported by ambulance to Lidcombe Hospital. Following a hearing in February 2025 and a further application from the Local Health District seeking a financial management order, NCAT made a financial management order committing the management of her estate to the NSW Trustee and Guardian and reviewed and varied the July 2024 order (the 2025 orders). On the day of the February 2025 hearing, the mother remained in Lidcombe Hospital. The 2025 orders are the subject of the appeal.
The appellant raised two grounds of appeal, firstly, the jurisdictional issue of the mother’s purported residence in South Australia and secondly, whether NCAT appeared to be biased in refusing to permit a neighbour to give evidence but allowing a different son of the mother who allegedly had “an extensive criminal history” to give evidence. Held (Dismissing the appeal, finding that NCAT does have jurisdiction and Guardianship Division proceedings are not between parties): (i) The first question of law raised in relation to ground 1 concerned whether NCAT had jurisdiction where the mother was purportedly a resident of South Australia. The High Court has previously found in Burns v Corbett (2017) 265 CLR 304; [2018] HCA 15 at [43], [55], [64] and [119], that a State Parliament lacks legislative capacity to confer on a state tribunal, that is not a court, judicial power with respect to any matter in ss 75 or 76 of the Constitution, including any matter “between residents of different States”: s 75(iv). The Appeal Panel analysed and adopted the analysis of Quinlan CJ in the Western Australian Supreme Court case of GS v MS [2019] WASC 255 which considered an appeal from the State’s equivalent Guardianship Division, and which found that the Tribunal’s power to make guardianship orders “falls clearly on the ‘administrative’ side of the ‘borderland’ of judicial and administrative functions” at [77]. In that case, the Chief Justice held that Burns v Corbett does not apply to guardianship functions, being protective in nature, as such an application has no sides, is not between parties, nor a “matter” exercising judicial power within the meaning of s 75(iv) of the Constitution. The Appeal Panel held that, even if the mother was a South Australian resident when the relevant guardianship orders were made, NCAT would not lack power to determine the applications simply because two of the parties to those proceedings were from different states.
(ii) The second question of law in ground 1 concerned whether NCAT was deprived of jurisdiction to review and vary the July 2024 orders because of the reviewable guardianship order made by SACAT to appoint the SA Public Advocate in December 2024. That order also dismissed an application by the appellant seeking to be appointed as guardian. The SA and NSW Guardianship Acts are corresponding laws that permit the recognition of the appointment of guardians in other jurisdictions. Recognition of the appointment of the SA Public Advocate was not sought by the appellant. The Appeal Panel noted that there must be a connection between a person with a disability and NSW for NCAT to have power to determine a guardianship application and that the establishment of that connection will turn on the facts of the specific case. In this case, the Appeal Panel found that there was sufficient territorial connection between NSW and the mother when NCAT made the guardianship orders and decisions. Ground 1 was not established.
(iii) Ground 2 of the appellant’s case alleged that NCAT appeared to be biased because of two decisions. The first was that NCAT refused to allow a neighbour, Mr N, to give evidence. The Appeal Panel noted that NCAT’s reasons do not make reference to Mr N, other than that he had attended the hearing. Despite orders requiring a transcript and sound recording of the hearing, none were provided, and it was not possible to determine the issue.
(iv) The second part of ground 2 alleged that, despite refusing to permit Mr N to give evidence, NCAT accepted the evidence given by one of the mother’s sons, Mr M, who allegedly has an extensive criminal history. This claim was also not made out. There was no evidence that the other son had a criminal history, or that NCAT was made aware of it. The Appeal Panel applied the so-called “double-might test”, that was stated by the High Court in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63 at [6], whether “a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the [decision-maker] might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the [decision-maker] is required to decide”. It was observed, among other things, that it is common practice for family members to give evidence in guardianship proceedings, an issue in the proceedings was whether the appellant was suitable as guardian and that “it is not the role of the Tribunal to act as gatekeeper to prevent a witness whom it suspects has or might give untruthful evidence from giving evidence”. |
2. Is it a jurisdictional error for NCAT to allow the NSW Information Commissioner to continue to appear under s 104(1) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)? |
Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2025] NSWCATAP 225
G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; M Tibbey, Senior Member
In sum: An Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division (AEOD), finding that the Tribunal Member did not make a jurisdictional error by failing to disqualify herself on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias. The appellant unsuccessfully contended that the Information Commissioner’s ongoing right to appear under s 104(1) of the GIPA Act was limited to the discretion of NCAT. On that basis, the appellant unsuccessfully claimed that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias of NCAT because the Principal Member allowed the allegedly biased Information Commissioner to continue to appear. The Appeal Panel found that there was no basis to establish that the Information Commissioner had compromised her independence and that, in any event, the right to appear under s 104(1) would have been unaffected.
Facts: On 23 July 2020, the appellant made an application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act). Following AEOD proceedings in 2020 and 2021, an Appeal Panel remitted the matter to the respondent, Blue Mountains City Council, for redetermination in accordance with its reasons. On 19 November 2021 the respondent made a decision to refuse to deal with the application for information on the basis that to do so would be an unreasonable and substantial diversion of the respondent’s resources under s 41(1)(e) of the GIPA Act. On 13 November 2024, the Tribunal affirmed the respondent’s decision under review and rejected the appellant's submissions that he could not be given a fair hearing on this review because of the previous decision in NCAT in this matter, finding that there was no basis on which an independent observer might reasonably apprehend the Tribunal would be biased following the making and setting aside of a decision by another member. The Tribunal also rejected the appellant’s submissions that it was biased because the Information Commissioner, who has a right to appear under s 104(1) of the GIPA Act, participated in the proceedings.
Held (Dismissing the appeal): (i) The appellant’s first question on appeal was whether there was a pre-existing bias on the part of the Information Commissioner who appeared at the hearing. The Appeal Panel did not accept the submission that the Information Commissioner’s right to appear under s 104(1) of the GIPA Act is limited to an initial right to appear and thereafter at the discretion of NCAT to grant leave. The Appeal Panel also did not accept the appellant’s submission that the Information Commissioner had acted in bad faith in some way or compromised her independence, noting that even if the appellant had established a compromise of independence, this does not affect the statutory right to appear under s 104(1) of the GIPA Act.
(ii) The appellant’s second question concerned whether, if the first question was answered in the affirmative, s 104(1) of the GIPA Act gives the Information Commissioner the right to continue to appear and be heard in the proceedings. While no answer to this question was necessary, the Appeal Panel considered that an affirmative answer would have been given, meaning the right to appear would be unaffected.
(iii) Similar to question 2, the third question addresses whether, if the Information Commissioner did not have the right to continue to appear in circumstances where a bias exists (i.e. question 2 is answered in the negative), the decision of NCAT to allow the Information Commissioner’s continuing appearance gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. While answering the third question was not necessary, the Appeal Panel had regard to the threefold test for the reasonable apprehension of bias set out in QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 279 CLR 148; [2023] HCA 15 at [38] and found that none of the criteria were established |
3. Where an applicant is not an “aggrieved person”, does NCAT have jurisdiction to hear the matter under s 53 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)? |
FMM v Icare NSW [2025] NSWCATAP 218
R Dubler SC, Senior Member; EA MacIntyre, Senior Member
In sum: An Appeal Panel refused leave to appeal and dismissed an appeal against an interlocutory decision from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division, finding no error of law in the conclusion of NCAT that it lacked jurisdiction under s 53 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) (PPIP Act). NCAT determined that the appellant was not an “aggrieved” person within the meaning of s 53, which is a jurisdictional pre-condition for an application seeking review of an internal decision. Although the internal review had proceeded on the assumption that the appellant was aggrieved, the Tribunal held that “there can be no bar on the Respondent putting a different position before the Tribunal”. The statutory framework made clear that only a person aggrieved may seek review, and as this threshold was not met, the appeal was dismissed.
Facts: The respondent made a disclosure to the appellant of certain information on 15 November 2022. That disclosure occurred in circumstances where a summons was issued for an unredacted copy of a spreadsheet in a separate matter. On receipt of the summons, a solicitor at the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office sent the appellant an email with a fully unredacted copy of a spreadsheet, which contained the appellant’s personal information and that of others. A different version, where only the appellant’s information had been unredacted, was issued in the separate matter and the appellant confirmed on 21 November 2022 that she had deleted the fully unredacted spreadsheet. The appellant applied for internal review concerning the disclosure of the fully unredacted spreadsheet, which found that there had been no contravention of privacy legislation. The appellant sought review of that decision in NCAT where it was determined that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because the appellant did not answer the description of a person “aggrieved”. The decision of NCAT on 11 December 2023 was the subject of this appeal.
Held (Dismissing the appeal): (i) While the internal review was conducted on the assumption that the appellant met the criteria of an aggrieved person, NCAT held at first instance, and the Appeal Panel agreed, that the respondent was entitled to adopt a different position before NCAT. The Appeal Panel determined that NCAT did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction under s 53 of the PPIP Act. The Appeal Panel agreed that the appellant did not meet the definition of an “aggrieved” person because the material disclosed concerned the appellant herself. This was a jurisdictional prerequisite for seeking a review of an internal decision in NCAT. Therefore, it was determined that NCAT did not have power to proceed, and the application was dismissed.
(ii) The appellant claimed that NCAT erred in fact in its treatment of the medical evidence with regard to the finding that it was not possible to establish a causative link between her adverse medical condition and receipt of the fully unredacted spreadsheet because she was suffering from a pre-existing condition, noting that the medical evidence did not refer to the November 2022 unredacted spreadsheet. The Appeal Panel also confirmed that NCAT did not make an error in finding that the appellant’s claim of prejudice was not proved, and she had “not been prejudicially affected by the release to her of information about persons other than herself”.
(iii) In the absence of jurisdiction in NCAT, the Appeal Panel determined that there was no need to consider the remaining grounds of appeal |
|
|
Thompson v Aboriginal Housing Office [2025] NSWCATAP 212 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: Dr K M George, Senior Member; J Ledda, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – LEASES AND TENANCIES – whether substantial miscarriage of justice – error of law – reduction or withdrawal of goods, services or facilities – rent reduction – landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain – compensation |
|
Shah v The Owners- Strata Plan No. 7655 [2025] NSWCATAP 215 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: A Bell SC, Senior Member; D Goldstein, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – STRATA TITLE – By-law imposing an absolute prohibition – whether harsh, unconscionable or oppressive |
Urqueza v Zeng [2025] NSWCATAP 216 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Robertson, Principal Member; J Connelly, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) s 51(3)(b) — Compensation for failure to leave premises as nearly as possible in the same condition, fair wear and tear excepted LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) s 63 — Compensation for loss of amenity, loss of enjoyment, distress, disappointment and inconvenience arising from failure of landlord to keep premises in good repair |
Lawrence v Ciantar No 3 [2025] NSWCATAP 217 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P H Molony, Senior Member Catchwords: Costs – where claim for $484,347 made under the Home Building Act 1989 dismissed as out of time – ancillary decision - where appeal dismissed - costs on appeal under r 38A of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act follow the event |
FMM v Icare NSW [2025] NSWCATAP 218 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: R Dubler SC, Senior Member; EA MacIntyre, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL - right of appeal - question of law - leave to appeal PRIVACY - aggrieved person - internal review - review by Civil and Administrative Tribunal |
EFC Constructions Pty Limited v Malik [2025] NSWCATAP 219 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S De Jersey, Principal Member; H Woods, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS - Error on question of law - denial of procedural fairness - leave to appeal -decision not fair and equitable - decision against weight of evidence - significant new evidence not reasonably available at the hearing - withdrawal of admission. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION - interpretation of residential building work re flooring under s 2(3)(k) of Schedule 1 to the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) - work order or money order having regard to s 48MA of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) - acceptance of expert evidence |
Zhang v Stephenson [2025] NSWCATAP 221 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: R Titterton OAM, Senior Member; G K Burton SC, Senior Member Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY – dividing fences – sufficient dividing fence – placement of fence on or near boundary - survey of boundary – extension of time – alleged negligent or intentional damage – alleged vexatious litigant – alleged res judicata – scope of previous proceedings |
Rushton v St George Community Housing Limited [2025] NSWCATAP 222 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President; J Gatland, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – alteration of premises by tenant – without consent of landlord – compensation payable to landlord – no error of law established – no grounds to grant leave to appeal established |
Decision FHP v Arys Health Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] NSWCATAP 223 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEALS — adjournment – application for adjournment by the appellant - principles – application dismissed APPEALS — bias — application for recusal — principles – application dismissed APPEALS — time specified by the Appeal Panel for the appellant to obtain the consent of the Supreme Court to continue the appeal against the first respondent which is in liquidation – application for an extension of time by the Appellant – application dismissed |
YJC v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2025] NSWCATAP 224 Appeal from the Guardianship Division Decision of: A Britton, Deputy President; C A Mulvey, Senior Member (Legal); Dr B McPhee, Senior Member (Professional) Catchwords: APPEALS – NCAT – appeal on a question of law – 40 purported questions of law – appellant required to particularise questions of law PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – whether Tribunal failed to engage with a “substantial, clearly articulated argument relying upon established facts” EVIDENCE – whether Tribunal made findings without evidence – whether findings lacked “an evident and intelligible justification” ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – reasons for decision – whether Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for its decision to make an initial guardianship order for term of 3 years PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – bias – apprehended bias – knowledge to be attributed to the hypothetical lay observer APPEALS – interlocutory decisions – principles governing leave to appeal |
Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2025] NSWCATAP 225 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; M Tibbey, Senior Member Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – access to government information – freedom of information – unreasonable and substantial diversion of resources APPEALS - Procedural fairness — apprehension of bias – principles - bias not established |
Dama Building Group Pty Limited v CK Roofing Solutions Pty Limited [2025] NSWCATAP 226 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S de Jersey, Principal Member; R Titterton OAM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – appeals from an interlocutory decision to dismiss proceedings for the party’s failure to attend – hearing listed for in-person hearing – legal representative appeared by AVL to seek an adjournment – relevant principles for appeals under s 80(2)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) |
|
Abubaker v Vaughan [2025] NSWCATAP 228 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G K Burton SC, Senior Member; P H Molony, Senior Member Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – consumer guarantees for legal services – instructions on scope of guilty plea - exclusion of costs assessment matters under Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s 79M |
Gaynor v Burns [2025] NSWCATAP 229 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: K Ransome, Principal Member; G Blake AM SC, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEAL – administrative review – matter involving dispute between residents of different states – whether denial of procedural fairness in dismissing application for lack of jurisdiction – whether Tribunal required to be satisfied that it otherwise had jurisdiction to determine that matter – consideration of Part 3A of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 |
Lander v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2025] NSWCATAP 230 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; Dr K M George, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES – residential tenancy dispute – claim for compensation for breach of the residential tenancy agreement by alleged wrongful eviction commenced outside the time prescribed for commencing such a claim – additional claim for compensation under s120 (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). APPEALS – Tribunal erred by proceeding to determine the merits of the claim when it had no jurisdiction to do so. |
Leo and Fang v Conrad Homes Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 231 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; H Woods, Senior Member Catchwords: Appeals – appeal against dismissal of application under cl 9(b) and the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation – nature of decision |
|
Hafezi v Luff Pier Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWCATAP 233 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Robertson, Principal Member; M Deane, Senior Member Catchwords: COSTS - Party/Party — Appeals – amount in dispute exceeds $30,000 - general rule that costs follow the event – whether costs should be apportioned - costs awarded in favour of successful party |
YKL v South Western Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWCATAP 234 Appeal from the Guardianship Division Decision of: A Britton, Deputy President; C A Mulvey, Senior Member (Legal); Dr B McPhee, Senior Member (Professional) Catchwords: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — extra-territorial operation of State legislation CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — nature of Burns v Corbett (2017) 265 CLR 304 restriction — whether NCAT in determining applications under the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) is exercising judicial or administrative power — whether proceedings in the Guardianship Division of NCAT is a matter between parties STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION — recognition of guardians and financial managers appointed under a corresponding law s 49B Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) — whether NCAT has power to determine application under Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) in respect of person subject of a guardianship order made under corresponding law STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION — necessary territorial connection between NSW and person subject of an application made under Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS — bias — test of apprehended bias, double might test —knowledge to be attributed to hypothetical reasonable lay observer |
|
|
Sharpe v Ralph Mazza and Lisa Mazza trading as Penrith Engine Services [2025] NSWCATAP 237 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; J Sullivan, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Consumer claim – Where respondent reconditioned the appellant’s vehicle engine – Where appellant made a claim against the respondent for subsequent engine failure and damage to transmission – Whether Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness to the appellant or their expert witness – Whether Tribunal’s decision was against the weight of the evidence as to the cause of the engine failure – No sound recording available from hearing due to technical issues - Role of expert witness representing appellant in the appeal |
Nguyen v Nguyen [2025] NSWCATAP 238 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D A C Robertson, Principal Member; R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Contract – Repudiation by builder – Compensation for breach |
Chen v The Owners –Strata Plan No 55792 [2025] NSWCATAP 239 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member; J Redfern PSM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – whether appeal raised a question of law – no question of principle – whether appeal raises an error warranting a grant of leave – no question of principle – appeals of interlocutory decisions – no question of principle |
|
Anderson v McClenaghan [2025] NSWCATAP 241 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Robertson, Principal Member; M Tyson, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – whether there was an agreement to grant for value a right of occupation of residential premises - meaning of agreement APPEAL – Question of law – whether reasons adequate |
YNM v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2025] NSWCATAP 242 Appeal from the Guardianship Division Decision of: A Britton, Deputy President; S Handebo, Principal Member; Dr M Wroth, Senior Member Catchwords: NCAT – internal appeals from decisions made by the Guardianship Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal – principles governing grant of leave to appeal under s 80(2)(b) of Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) NCAT – internal appeals – whether new evidence warrants exercise of the discretion to deal with the appeal by way of new hearing under s 80(3) of Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) |
Grbevska & Grbevski v Zac Homes Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 243 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S Westgarth, Deputy President; P H Molony, Senior Member Catchwords: Building and Construction – where contract still on foot and construction incomplete – Damages for ongoing loss of interest and lenders charges due to delay – whether within the reasonable contemplation of the parties |
|
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. |
