Tom v Commissioner of Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 57

Tom v Commissioner of Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 57

Ms Webster was not a necessary or proper party because she had no legal interest in the outcome of the administrative review, would not be bound by it, and had no analogous statutory role to the Commissioner of Police in Fine. The Hardiman principle did not require her joinder. The Tribunal was not persuaded that s...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Decision to Cancel Contractor Licence Under the Home Building Act 1989 and Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 / Interlocutory Applications to Join Deirdre Webster, Obtain Access to Property for Inspection, and Adjourn Final Hearing
Outcome
Interlocutory applications refused.
Legal Topics
['administrative Review' 'contractor Licence Cancellation' 'joinder of Parties' 'interlocutory Orders' 'access to Property for Expert Inspection' 'adjournment']
['administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure' 'home Building Regulation'] ['administrative Review' 'contractor Licence Cancellation' 'joinder of Parties' 'interlocutory Orders' 'access to Property for Expert Inspection' 'adjournment']

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

Administrative Review of Decision to Cancel Contractor Licence Under the Home Building Act 1989 and Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 / Interlocutory Applications to Join Deirdre Webster, Obtain Access to Property for Inspection, and Adjourn Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Deirdre Webster should be joined as a respondent to the administrative review proceedings under s 44 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'Whether the Tribunal could order Ms Webster, a non-party who did not consent, to provide access to her property for an expert inspection under s 30(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 or s 63(2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997.' 'Whether the final hearing should be adjourned to allow inspections and expert reports if access orders were made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Webster was not a necessary or proper party because she had no legal interest in the outcome of the administrative review, would not be bound by it, and had no analogous statutory role to the Commissioner of Police in Fine. The Hardiman principle did not require her joinder. The Tribunal was not persuaded that s 30(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 or s 63(2) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 empowered it to compel access to the property of a non-party who did not consent, and in any event would decline to order access because the proposed inspection was invasive, Ms Webster objected, and there was no evidence of insurance or indemnities. Because...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to join Deirdre Webster as a respondent to the proceedings is refused.' 'The application for an order for Deirdre Webster to provide access to the subject property is refused.' 'The application for adjournment of the final hearing is refused.']