Foundas v Hellas Europe Australia Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 110

Foundas v Hellas Europe Australia Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 110

The Appeal Panel was not persuaded that there was any denial of procedural fairness or legal error. The Tribunal's findings that the appellant contracted with Peter Argo in Greece and that the respondent acted as Peter Argo's agent were open on the evidence and were not challenged by either party. Any contractual claim about excessive charges was therefore a claim against Peter Argo, not the respondent, and in any event the appellant produced no evidence proving that the respondent's charges were excessive. No error of law or basis for leave to appeal was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused and the appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['principal and Agent' "liability for Fees and Charges of Another Party's Agent" 'freight Forwarding Charges' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']
['contract' 'agency' 'consumer and Commercial' 'civil Procedure'] ['principal and Agent' "liability for Fees and Charges of Another Party's Agent" 'freight Forwarding Charges' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']

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 a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal denied the appellant procedural fairness or was biased.' 'Whether there was any contract between the appellant and the respondent making the respondent liable or disentitling it to charges.' "Whether the respondent's charges were excessive and whether the Tribunal's finding was not fair and equitable or against the weight of evidence." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 80(2)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) and Sch 4 cl 12(1).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel was not persuaded that there was any denial of procedural fairness or legal error. The Tribunal's findings that the appellant contracted with Peter Argo in Greece and that the respondent acted as Peter Argo's agent were open on the evidence and were not challenged by either party. Any contractual claim about excessive charges was therefore a claim against Peter Argo, not the respondent, and in any event the appellant produced no evidence proving that the respondent's charges were excessive. No error of law or basis for leave to appeal was established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused and the appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is otherwise dismissed.']