Sethi v Cho [2023] NSWCATAP 221

Sethi v Cho [2023] NSWCATAP 221

The applicant gave no proper explanation for the two-day delay, the respondent would suffer prejudice from further delay in obtaining possession, and the application lacked sufficient apparent merit. If the substantive decision determined the appeal proceedings, reg 9 could not assist because the applicant was...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside or Vary Appeal Panel Decisions / On the Papers for the Substantive Decision; S 64 Application Listed for Oral Hearing
Outcome
Leave to extend time to lodge the application to set aside or vary the substantive Appeal Panel decision was refused; the application concerning the s 64 decision was listed for oral hearing.
Legal Topics
['application to Set Aside or Vary Tribunal Decision' 'extension of Time' 'regulation 9 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulations 2022 (nsw)' 'section 64 Non Disclosure or Non Publication Application' 'leave to Appeal']
['civil and Administrative Procedure' 'residential Tenancy' 'appeals' 'non Publication Orders'] ['application to Set Aside or Vary Tribunal Decision' 'extension of Time' 'regulation 9 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulations 2022 (nsw)' 'section 64 Non Disclosure or Non Publication Application' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Application to Set Aside or Vary Appeal Panel Decisions / On the Papers for the Substantive Decision; S 64 Application Listed for Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended under s 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) to lodge the application to set aside or vary the Appeal Panel's substantive decision." 'Whether reg 9 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulations 2022 (NSW) empowered the Tribunal to set aside or vary the substantive decision where the applicant was present at the appeal hearing and the respondent did not consent.' 'Whether the application showed sufficient apparent merit, including by identifying a material change in circumstances or discovery of new material, to warrant an extension of time.' "Whether the application concerning the Appeal Panel's refusal to make an order under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) should be dealt with separately and listed for hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant gave no proper explanation for the two-day delay, the respondent would suffer prejudice from further delay in obtaining possession, and the application lacked sufficient apparent merit. If the substantive decision determined the appeal proceedings, reg 9 could not assist because the applicant was present at the hearing and the respondent opposed the application. Even if aspects of the refusal of leave were treated as not determinative, the applicant identified no probative material change in circumstances or new material; his concerns about Supreme Court proceedings did not justify varying the substantive decision. The application concerning the s 64 decision was distinct...

Court Disposition

Leave to extend time to lodge the application to set aside or vary the substantive Appeal Panel decision was refused; the application concerning the s 64 decision was listed for oral hearing.

Orders

  • ['Leave to extend time to lodge the application to set aside or vary the decision of the Appeal Panel of 30 June 2023, published as Sethi v Cho [2023] NSWCATAP 179, is refused.' "The application to set aside or vary the Appeal Panel's decision of 30 June 2023 in respect of the application for an order under s 64 of...