Hoger v Coria [2023] NSWCATAP 222

Hoger v Coria [2023] NSWCATAP 222

The landlord's complaints challenged factual findings and the outcome with which he disagreed, but did not identify a question of law. The proposed new material was not shown to have been before the Tribunal or not reasonably available at the time of the hearing. None of the matters raised involved an issue of principle, a question of public importance, a reasonably clear injustice, a plain central error, a clearly mistaken factual error, or an unorthodox fact-finding process likely to produce an unfair result. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'question of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'quiet Enjoyment' 'withdrawal of Facilities']
['residential Tenancies' 'administrative Law' 'appeals'] ['leave to Appeal' 'question of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'quiet Enjoyment' 'withdrawal of Facilities']

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

Internal Appeal in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the landlord's grounds of appeal raised a question of law appealable as of right under s 80 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted under cl 12 of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' "Whether the landlord could rely on documents and allegations not before the Tribunal, including material about the tenant's alleged Australian Business Number and an email about lawn mowing." "Whether the Tribunal made an error warranting leave in accepting the tenant's evidence about withdrawal of facilities and unauthorised attendances at the premises."]

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord's complaints challenged factual findings and the outcome with which he disagreed, but did not identify a question of law. The proposed new material was not shown to have been before the Tribunal or not reasonably available at the time of the hearing. None of the matters raised involved an issue of principle, a question of public importance, a reasonably clear injustice, a plain central error, a clearly mistaken factual error, or an unorthodox fact-finding process likely to produce an unfair result. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.']