Grant v Schultz [2018] NSWCATAP 66

Grant v Schultz [2018] NSWCATAP 66

On the evidence before the Appeal Panel, the landlord sufficiently explained his absence from the original hearing and had not been given an opportunity to be heard. That denial of procedural fairness amounted to an error of law, justifying the appeal. If an extension of time was required, it should be granted because any delay was not lengthy, the landlord had reasonable prospects at a rehearing, the tenant showed no prejudice, and refusing an extension would work an injustice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Dispute Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 27 October 2017
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; appeal allowed; matter remitted to Consumer and Commercial Division for rehearing.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'failure of Party to Be Heard' 'extension of Time' 'error of Law' 'remittal for Rehearing']
['residential Tenancy' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['procedural Fairness' 'failure of Party to Be Heard' 'extension of Time' 'error of Law' 'remittal for Rehearing']

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

Residential Tenancy Dispute Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 27 October 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the landlord was denied procedural fairness because he was not given an opportunity to be heard at the Tribunal hearing.' 'Whether the asserted denial of procedural fairness constituted an error of law allowing an appeal as of right under CATA, s 80(2)(b).' 'Whether, if necessary, time should be extended for filing the Notice of Appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence before the Appeal Panel, the landlord sufficiently explained his absence from the original hearing and had not been given an opportunity to be heard. That denial of procedural fairness amounted to an error of law, justifying the appeal. If an extension of time was required, it should be granted because any delay was not lengthy, the landlord had reasonable prospects at a rehearing, the tenant showed no prejudice, and refusing an extension would work an injustice.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; appeal allowed; matter remitted to Consumer and Commercial Division for rehearing.

Orders

  • ['Application for an extension of time to 18 January 2018 for the filing of the Notice of Appeal be granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Matter be remitted to Consumer and Commercial Division for rehearing.']