Atkinson v CTTT [2010] NSWSC 426

Atkinson v CTTT [2010] NSWSC 426

The Chairperson's direction for substituted service was open on the material before her because it supported the inferences that Quaestor and Mr Atkinson shared the same office on Level 42 and that documents sent care of Quaestor would in all reasonable probability come to the plaintiffs' attention. The Court was not satisfied that Mr Atkinson had no knowledge of the proceedings; rather, it was probable that the CTTT notices reached him and that the plaintiffs knew of the proceedings. With that knowledge, the plaintiffs had the opportunity required by s 35 but did not use it. Relief was also refused because the plaintiffs did not show a reasonably arguable defence on the merits to the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Summons Seeking an Order in the Nature of Certiorari to Set Aside a Decision and Order of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs of the defendants of the summons.
Legal Topics
['substituted Service' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'certiorari' 'owner Builder Statutory Warranties' 'ex Parte Tribunal Hearing']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'building and Construction'] ['substituted Service' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'certiorari' 'owner Builder Statutory Warranties' 'ex Parte Tribunal Hearing']

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

Summons Seeking an Order in the Nature of Certiorari to Set Aside a Decision and Order of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Chairperson of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal had a permissible basis to direct substituted service on the plaintiffs care of Quaestor at Level 42, Australia Square.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were denied natural justice or procedural fairness because they allegedly had no notice of the CTTT proceedings and no opportunity to adduce evidence or make submissions.' 'Whether relief should be refused because the plaintiffs had not shown an arguable defence on the merits to the CTTT claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Chairperson's direction for substituted service was open on the material before her because it supported the inferences that Quaestor and Mr Atkinson shared the same office on Level 42 and that documents sent care of Quaestor would in all reasonable probability come to the plaintiffs' attention. The Court was not satisfied that Mr Atkinson had no knowledge of the proceedings; rather, it was probable that the CTTT notices reached him and that the plaintiffs knew of the proceedings. With that knowledge, the plaintiffs had the opportunity required by s 35 but did not use it. Relief was also refused because the plaintiffs did not show a reasonably arguable defence on the merits to the...

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs of the defendants of the summons.

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed.' 'The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the defendants of the summons.']