Kode v Tassone [2020] NSWCATAP 108

Kode v Tassone [2020] NSWCATAP 108

Leave was refused because, applying the NCAT Act guiding principle and the Mesiha factors, the Appellants' material was more than four weeks late, they had not provided acceptable evidence or reasons for failing to comply with the filing orders, the material filed would not advance the real issues because the expert report said to be needed had not been obtained and no date for it was identified, the Appellants had already been afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and further delay would adversely affect speed, efficiency and the Respondents' position.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in an Appeal Panel Appeal / On the Papers; Application for Leave to Extend the Date by Which Documents on Which the Appellants Seek to Rely Are to Be Filed
Outcome
Leave to extend the date by which documents on which the Appellants seek to rely are to be filed is refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'late Filing of Evidence' 'interlocutory Decision' 'tribunal Practice and Procedure' 'ncat Guiding Principle' 'natural Justice']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'building and Construction'] ['extension of Time' 'late Filing of Evidence' 'interlocutory Decision' 'tribunal Practice and Procedure' 'ncat Guiding Principle' 'natural Justice']

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

Interlocutory Application in an Appeal Panel Appeal / On the Papers; Application for Leave to Extend the Date by Which Documents on Which the Appellants Seek to Rely Are to Be Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to extend the date by which the Appellants' documents were to be filed in support of the appeal." "Whether the Appellants provided acceptable evidence or reasons for failing to comply with the Appeal Panel's filing directions." 'Whether granting the extension would advance the real issues in dispute consistently with the just, quick and cheap resolution of the proceedings and without undue prejudice to the Respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because, applying the NCAT Act guiding principle and the Mesiha factors, the Appellants' material was more than four weeks late, they had not provided acceptable evidence or reasons for failing to comply with the filing orders, the material filed would not advance the real issues because the expert report said to be needed had not been obtained and no date for it was identified, the Appellants had already been afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and further delay would adversely affect speed, efficiency and the Respondents' position.

Court Disposition

Leave to extend the date by which documents on which the Appellants seek to rely are to be filed is refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to extend the date by which documents on which the Appellants seek to rely are to be filed is refused.']