David Harris & Deidre Harris t/as Wellington Concrete v Mayne [2011] NSWSC 1551

David Harris & Deidre Harris t/as Wellington Concrete v Mayne [2011] NSWSC 1551

The Plaintiffs did not receive the notices vacating the 13 July 2011 hearing and appointing 14 July 2011. There was also no evidence that the Registrar caused notice of the 14 July hearing to be given. Because compliance with s 25(1) of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 was mandatory before the Tribunal could proceed in the Plaintiffs' absence, and because the Plaintiffs were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, the CTTT lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter. In any event, the Tribunal denied procedural fairness by proceeding on the basis of misconceptions about the Plaintiffs' adjournment request and notice of the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Prerogative Relief in Relation to a Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Determination / Principal Judgment
Outcome
The CTTT determination made 14 July 2011 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to be determined in accordance with law.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'prerogative Relief' 'certiorari' 'consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'notice of Hearing' 'adjournment']
['administrative Law'] ['judicial Review' 'prerogative Relief' 'certiorari' 'consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'notice of Hearing' 'adjournment']

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

Judicial Review Application for Prerogative Relief in Relation to a Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Determination / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Plaintiffs received notice of the CTTT hearing fixed for 14 July 2011.' "Whether the CTTT had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter in the Plaintiffs' absence." 'Whether, if the CTTT had jurisdiction, it denied procedural fairness by failing to notify the Plaintiffs earlier of the changed hearing date and by refusing an adjournment or telephone hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs did not receive the notices vacating the 13 July 2011 hearing and appointing 14 July 2011. There was also no evidence that the Registrar caused notice of the 14 July hearing to be given. Because compliance with s 25(1) of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 was mandatory before the Tribunal could proceed in the Plaintiffs' absence, and because the Plaintiffs were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, the CTTT lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter. In any event, the Tribunal denied procedural fairness by proceeding on the basis of misconceptions about the Plaintiffs' adjournment request and notice of the hearing.

Court Disposition

The CTTT determination made 14 July 2011 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to be determined in accordance with law.

Orders

  • ['An order in the nature of certiorari removing into the Court the determination of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal made 14 July, 2011 in File No HB 10/50297 and quashing that determination.' 'The matter be remitted to the Tribunal to be determined in accordance with law.' "The Defendants are to pay the...