Raffie v JIH Building Designs Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1512

Raffie v JIH Building Designs Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1512

Grounds alleging denial of procedural fairness by the Appeal Panel were not incompetent, but the specified remaining grounds were incompetent because they did not raise questions of law and, insofar as they sought to challenge the Tribunal Member's first instance decision, that decision was internally appealable to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Decision of NCAT Appeal Panel; Notice of Motion to Dismiss Portions of Amended Summons as Incompetent / Procedural Ruling on Defendant's Notice of Motion Dated 2 July 2021
Outcome
Specified paragraphs of the amended summons dismissed as incompetent; proceedings stood over for directions; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['competency of Appeal' 'appeal From NCAT Appeal Panel' 'question of Law' 'procedural Fairness' 'fair Trading Act Consumer Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'consumer Law'] ['competency of Appeal' 'appeal From NCAT Appeal Panel' 'question of Law' 'procedural Fairness' 'fair Trading Act Consumer Claim']

Source-derived case record

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 Decision of NCAT Appeal Panel; Notice of Motion to Dismiss Portions of Amended Summons as Incompetent / Procedural Ruling on Defendant's Notice of Motion Dated 2 July 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether specified grounds in the plaintiff's amended summons were incompetent because they did not raise questions of law." "Whether the plaintiff could appeal the Tribunal Member's first instance decision to the Supreme Court after an internal appeal to the NCAT Appeal Panel." 'Whether grounds alleging denial of procedural fairness by the Appeal Panel were competent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Grounds alleging denial of procedural fairness by the Appeal Panel were not incompetent, but the specified remaining grounds were incompetent because they did not raise questions of law and, insofar as they sought to challenge the Tribunal Member's first instance decision, that decision was internally appealable to the Appeal Panel and could not be appealed a second time to the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Specified paragraphs of the amended summons dismissed as incompetent; proceedings stood over for directions; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 2 (first appearing), 1 (second appearing), 2 (second appearing), 3 (second appearing), 4 (second appearing), 5, 6, and 7 of the amended summons are dismissed as incompetent.' 'The proceedings are to be stood over before the Registrar at 9.00am 14 December 2021 for direction.' "Costs of the defendant's...