Haines v Tohadze [2021] NSWCATAP 40

Haines v Tohadze [2021] NSWCATAP 40

The appeal was dismissed because no procedural unfairness was established: the tenant had served the evidence on which he wished to rely, elected not to provide written submissions or authorise another representative, did not identify what he would have done differently with more notice, did not prove medical duress, and the adjournment request was considered and refused rather than ignored. In any event, the tenant did not demonstrate a real possibility of a different result had the hearing been conducted differently.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Orders of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division, Concerning Termination, Possession and Rental Arrears Under a Residential Tenancy / Appeal Panel Decision; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'hearing Rule' 'adjournment' 'termination and Possession' 'rental Arrears']
['residential Tenancy' 'administrative Law' 'appeals'] ['procedural Fairness' 'hearing Rule' 'adjournment' 'termination and Possession' 'rental Arrears']

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 From Orders of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division, Concerning Termination, Possession and Rental Arrears Under a Residential Tenancy / Appeal Panel Decision; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether short notice of the first instance hearing caused procedural unfairness to the tenant.' 'Whether the tenant was under medical duress at the first instance hearing such that the hearing was procedurally unfair.' "Whether the tenant's stated ability to pay rent at $1,275 per week provided an appeal ground." "Whether the Tribunal ignored or erroneously refused the tenant's adjournment request." 'Whether any alleged procedural unfairness gave rise to a real possibility of a different outcome at first instance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because no procedural unfairness was established: the tenant had served the evidence on which he wished to rely, elected not to provide written submissions or authorise another representative, did not identify what he would have done differently with more notice, did not prove medical duress, and the adjournment request was considered and refused rather than ignored. In any event, the tenant did not demonstrate a real possibility of a different result had the hearing been conducted differently.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']