Walsh, Aida v Concrete Concepts (Aust) Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 72

Walsh, Aida v Concrete Concepts (Aust) Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 72

The plaintiff was not denied procedural fairness. At the directions hearing both parties had evidence on liability and quantum, the Tribunal encouraged them to obtain advice, and the plaintiff later obtained and relied on additional quotes, showing that she did not understand the evidence to have been finally closed. The Tribunal's obligations under ss 28 and 35 did not require it to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiff's evidence for her, advise her how to prove her case, or offer an adjournment when her evidence proved inadequate. Member Tiga did not err in refusing a rehearing because the later technical report was evidence that could have been obtained with reasonable...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Supreme Court Determination of Further Amended Summons Seeking to Set Aside Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Decisions and Obtain a Rehearing
Outcome
Applications for judicial review dismissed; Tribunal decisions affirmed; further amended summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the first defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'rehearing Application' 'self Represented Litigant' 'relevant Evidence' 'tribunal Duty to Disclose Relevant Material' 'certiorari' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Procedure' 'procedural Fairness'] ['judicial Review' 'rehearing Application' 'self Represented Litigant' 'relevant Evidence' 'tribunal Duty to Disclose Relevant Material' 'certiorari' '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

Application for Judicial Review / Supreme Court Determination of Further Amended Summons Seeking to Set Aside Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Decisions and Obtain a Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal denied the plaintiff procedural fairness at the directions hearing by requiring evidence to be served and filed on 19 March 2012.' 'Whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness by failing to advise the self-represented plaintiff that her Fair Trading report and other material may be inadequate to prove her case.' 'Whether the Tribunal was obliged under s 28(5)(b) of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 to ensure that further relevant material was disclosed to it.' 'Whether Member Charles was required to offer the plaintiff an adjournment before dismissing her claim for insufficient evidence.' "Whether Member Tiga erred in refusing a rehearing on the basis that the plaintiff's new technical report could have been obtained before the hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not denied procedural fairness. At the directions hearing both parties had evidence on liability and quantum, the Tribunal encouraged them to obtain advice, and the plaintiff later obtained and relied on additional quotes, showing that she did not understand the evidence to have been finally closed. The Tribunal's obligations under ss 28 and 35 did not require it to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiff's evidence for her, advise her how to prove her case, or offer an adjournment when her evidence proved inadequate. Member Tiga did not err in refusing a rehearing because the later technical report was evidence that could have been obtained with reasonable...

Court Disposition

Applications for judicial review dismissed; Tribunal decisions affirmed; further amended summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the first defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The applications for judicial review are dismissed.' 'The decision of Member Howe dated 19 March 2012, the decision of Member Charles dated 19 June 2012 and the decision of Member Tiga dated 24 July 2012 are all affirmed.' 'The further amended summons filed 5 February 2013 is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay...