Lazic v Pacey and Ors [2009] NSWDC 72

Lazic v Pacey and Ors [2009] NSWDC 72

The respondents' motion was dismissed because the appellant's complaint that the Tribunal proceeded ex parte and thereby denied him natural justice raised a question of law for the purposes of s 67, and the District Court was not without power to grant the relief sought. The Court held that s 67 (3) empowers the District Court to remit its decision and order a rehearing, which necessarily involves setting aside the Tribunal's orders, and considered it appropriate to continue the stay because the appellant had not been heard before the Tribunal ordered him to pay a large sum of money.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Decisions of the Consumer Tenancy and Trader Tribunal Under S 67 of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 / Motion by Respondents Seeking Dismissal of the Appeal and Vacation of the Stay
Outcome
Motion dismissed; respondents ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the motion; stay continued pending determination of the appeal; outstanding motion and appeal listed for hearing.
Legal Topics
['question of Law on Appeal' 'natural Justice' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'district Court Jurisdiction' 'relief in the Nature of Certiorari' 'stay of Tribunal Orders']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Appeals'] ['question of Law on Appeal' 'natural Justice' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'district Court Jurisdiction' 'relief in the Nature of Certiorari' 'stay of Tribunal Orders']

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 Decisions of the Consumer Tenancy and Trader Tribunal Under S 67 of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 / Motion by Respondents Seeking Dismissal of the Appeal and Vacation of the Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an alleged denial of natural justice by the Tribunal in proceeding ex parte raised a question of law for an appeal under s 67 of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001.' "Whether the District Court had power to set aside the Tribunal's decision or grant relief akin to certiorari." "Whether the stay of the Tribunal's orders should continue pending determination of the appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' motion was dismissed because the appellant's complaint that the Tribunal proceeded ex parte and thereby denied him natural justice raised a question of law for the purposes of s 67, and the District Court was not without power to grant the relief sought. The Court held that s 67 (3) empowers the District Court to remit its decision and order a rehearing, which necessarily involves setting aside the Tribunal's orders, and considered it appropriate to continue the stay because the appellant had not been heard before the Tribunal ordered him to pay a large sum of money.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; respondents ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the motion; stay continued pending determination of the appeal; outstanding motion and appeal listed for hearing.

Orders

  • ["The motion is dismissed, the respondents are to pay the appellants' costs of the motion." 'The outstanding motion and the appeal are listed for hearing on 27 April 2009, noting a time estimate of one day plus and with liberty to the parties to apply in the event that that date proves to be unsuitable.']