Yazbeck & Yazbeck v Abreu, Abreu & Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal [2010] NSWDC 113

Yazbeck & Yazbeck v Abreu, Abreu & Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal [2010] NSWDC 113

In light of Dayeian v Davidson [2010] NSWCA 42, the District Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the prerogative relief sought under s 65 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001, so the parts of the summons seeking that relief had to be struck out, while the s 67 relief remained to be determined.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Summons Challenging a Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Decision / Preliminary Determination of District Court Jurisdiction to Grant Relief Under S 65 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001
Outcome
Parts [1] and [2] of the summons were struck out; the matter was re-listed for hearing of the relief sought under s 67; liberty to apply in relation to costs was granted.
Legal Topics
['district Court Jurisdiction' 'prerogative Relief' 'certiorari' 'mandamus' 'consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'appeal on Question of Law']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['district Court Jurisdiction' 'prerogative Relief' 'certiorari' 'mandamus' 'consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'appeal on Question of Law']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Summons Challenging a Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Decision / Preliminary Determination of District Court Jurisdiction to Grant Relief Under S 65 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court has jurisdiction to grant relief in the nature of certiorari and mandamus sought under s 65 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001.' 'Whether the matter should continue for determination of relief sought under s 67 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001.']

Ratio Decidendi

In light of Dayeian v Davidson [2010] NSWCA 42, the District Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the prerogative relief sought under s 65 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001, so the parts of the summons seeking that relief had to be struck out, while the s 67 relief remained to be determined.

Court Disposition

Parts [1] and [2] of the summons were struck out; the matter was re-listed for hearing of the relief sought under s 67; liberty to apply in relation to costs was granted.

Orders

  • ['Order that [1] and [2] of the summons be struck out.' 'Order that the matter be re-listed for hearing for determination of the relief sought under s 67.' 'Grant liberty to apply in relation to costs.']