Ghosh v Miller (CTTT Appeal) [2014] NSWDC 228

Ghosh v Miller (CTTT Appeal) [2014] NSWDC 228

The appeal failed because the Tribunal did not err in law in finding that the contract was made in New South Wales. The evidence and CTTT correspondence showed that the plaintiff's jurisdiction objection before the Tribunal was that the property was in Queensland, and did not state that she was in Queensland when the contract was made. Having failed to provide evidence and having terminated the telephone hearing, the plaintiff could not rely on a new factual assertion that had not been put to the Tribunal. Leave to amend to raise a new offer-and-acceptance ground was refused because of the late procedural history, proportionality concerns, and the small sum involved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2014
Procedural Posture
CTTT Appeal / Appeal to the District Court of New South Wales From Reasons for Decision of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Dated 3 September 2013
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant; appeal dismissed; costs reserved with liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
['tribunal Jurisdiction Under the Consumer Claims Act 1998 (nsw)' 'place of Contract Formation' 'offer and Acceptance' 'leave to Amend Grounds of Appeal' 'costs']
['consumer Law' 'civil Procedure' 'contract Law'] ['tribunal Jurisdiction Under the Consumer Claims Act 1998 (nsw)' 'place of Contract Formation' 'offer and Acceptance' 'leave to Amend Grounds of Appeal' 'costs']

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

CTTT Appeal / Appeal to the District Court of New South Wales From Reasons for Decision of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Dated 3 September 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal erred in law in holding that it had jurisdiction because the contract was made in New South Wales under Consumer Claims Act 1998 (NSW), s 7(2)(c).' 'Whether the plaintiff had told the Tribunal that she was in Queensland at the time the contract was entered into.' 'Whether the Tribunal was required to investigate a jurisdictional basis not put by the plaintiff after she failed to give evidence and terminated the telephone hearing.' "Whether leave should be granted to amend the appeal to contend that the Tribunal erred in finding that the defendant accepted the plaintiff's offer." "Whether, if leave to amend had been granted, the defendant accepted the plaintiff's offer in New South Wales."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Tribunal did not err in law in finding that the contract was made in New South Wales. The evidence and CTTT correspondence showed that the plaintiff's jurisdiction objection before the Tribunal was that the property was in Queensland, and did not state that she was in Queensland when the contract was made. Having failed to provide evidence and having terminated the telephone hearing, the plaintiff could not rely on a new factual assertion that had not been put to the Tribunal. Leave to amend to raise a new offer-and-acceptance ground was refused because of the late procedural history, proportionality concerns, and the small sum involved.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant; appeal dismissed; costs reserved with liberty to apply.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendant.' 'Costs reserved with liberty to apply.' 'Exhibits retained for 28 days.']