Tassone v Masters Home Improvement Australia Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 194

Tassone v Masters Home Improvement Australia Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 194

The appellant was given notice and an opportunity to file evidence, and her adjournment request was unsupported by adequate evidence, including medical evidence, so the Tribunal did not deny procedural fairness and no substantial miscarriage of justice was shown. The Appeal Panel found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that the rejection period under s 262 of the Australian Consumer Law had expired where the goods were supplied on or about 17 February 2016 and the appellant did not seek return and refund until late August or early September 2017. The remaining grounds did not justify relief because the first instance claim was for refund and return of goods rather than damages for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Consumer Proceedings / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adjournment Application' 'procedural Fairness' 'australian Consumer Law Rejection Period' 'leave to Appeal' 'refund and Return of Goods']
['consumer Law' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Tribunal Procedure'] ['adjournment Application' 'procedural Fairness' 'australian Consumer Law Rejection Period' 'leave to Appeal' 'refund and Return of Goods']

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

Internal Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Consumer Proceedings / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether refusal to adjourn the first instance hearing denied the appellant procedural fairness or made the decision not fair and equitable.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted under cl 12(1) of Sch 4 to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the Australian Consumer Law rejection period had expired before the appellant sought to reject the kitchen cabinetry components.' "Whether the appellant's remaining grounds concerning description of goods and the respondent's 30 day return policy justified appellate intervention."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was given notice and an opportunity to file evidence, and her adjournment request was unsupported by adequate evidence, including medical evidence, so the Tribunal did not deny procedural fairness and no substantial miscarriage of justice was shown. The Appeal Panel found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that the rejection period under s 262 of the Australian Consumer Law had expired where the goods were supplied on or about 17 February 2016 and the appellant did not seek return and refund until late August or early September 2017. The remaining grounds did not justify relief because the first instance claim was for refund and return of goods rather than damages for...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to Appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']