Kokinovski v V & V Landscapers Pty Ltd (RLD) [2010] NSWADTAP 47

Kokinovski v V & V Landscapers Pty Ltd (RLD) [2010] NSWADTAP 47

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the Appellant's two-month delay in filing the Notice of Appeal was significant and was not explained by a reasonable or cogent explanation, the Respondents would suffer prejudice through further expense and delay in pursuing a relatively modest monetary claim, and the proposed appeal had questionable merits, including because the Appellant had failed to put his asserted defences before the Tribunal despite notice of the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning a Retail Shop Lease Dispute / Application for Leave to Proceed With an Appeal Lodged Out of Time Before the Appeal Panel
Outcome
Leave to institute the appeal out of time was refused and the appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal Out of Time' 'retail Shop Lease Arrears' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'delay and Prejudice' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'retail Leases' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['leave to Appeal Out of Time' 'retail Shop Lease Arrears' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'delay and Prejudice' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings']

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

Appeal Concerning a Retail Shop Lease Dispute / Application for Leave to Proceed With an Appeal Lodged Out of Time Before the Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under section 113(3)(b) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 for an appeal lodged outside the prescribed time limit.' 'Whether the Appellant gave a reasonable or cogent explanation for the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal.' 'Whether granting leave would prejudice the Respondents through further expense and delay.' "Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merits, including in light of the Appellant's failure to appear at the Tribunal hearing and his proposed misrepresentation defence." 'Whether costs should be awarded against the Appellant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the Appellant's two-month delay in filing the Notice of Appeal was significant and was not explained by a reasonable or cogent explanation, the Respondents would suffer prejudice through further expense and delay in pursuing a relatively modest monetary claim, and the proposed appeal had questionable merits, including because the Appellant had failed to put his asserted defences before the Tribunal despite notice of the hearing.

Court Disposition

Leave to institute the appeal out of time was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to institute the appeal out of time is refused' 'The appeal is dismissed' "Unless within 21 days the Appellant files and serves submissions showing why costs should not be awarded against him, the Appellant is to pay on a party-party basis the Respondents' costs of and incidental to this appeal" 'If...