Brarny Partners Pty Ltd v Miller [2020] NSWCATAP 256

Brarny Partners Pty Ltd v Miller [2020] NSWCATAP 256

Even accepting that there was some doubt about whether the Tribunal contacted the appellant using the correct telephone number, the appellant did not show that any procedural unfairness deprived it of a possibility of a successful outcome. It did not contest the findings that misleading and deceptive representations were made and relied on, and it served no evidence proving a binding settlement agreement or any term releasing the respondent's legal rights. Nor was there material showing error in the damages assessment. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Concerning False or Misleading Representations in a Motor Vehicle Sale / Appeal Panel; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['false or Misleading Representations' 'motor Vehicle Sale' 'procedural Fairness' 'hearing Rule' 'new Hearing' 'assessment of Damages' 'settlement Agreement Defence']
['consumer Law' 'administrative Law'] ['false or Misleading Representations' 'motor Vehicle Sale' 'procedural Fairness' 'hearing Rule' 'new Hearing' 'assessment of Damages' 'settlement Agreement Defence']

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

Appeal From a Decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Concerning False or Misleading Representations in a Motor Vehicle Sale / Appeal Panel; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness because it was allegedly not contacted by telephone for the hearing before the Tribunal.' 'Whether any denial of an opportunity to be heard deprived the appellant of a possibility of a successful outcome if a new hearing were ordered.' 'Whether there was evidence of a binding settlement agreement or other defence arising from an alleged agreement to repair the exhaust.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation based on the difference between the sale price of the car and the payout figure for the finance contract.']

Ratio Decidendi

Even accepting that there was some doubt about whether the Tribunal contacted the appellant using the correct telephone number, the appellant did not show that any procedural unfairness deprived it of a possibility of a successful outcome. It did not contest the findings that misleading and deceptive representations were made and relied on, and it served no evidence proving a binding settlement agreement or any term releasing the respondent's legal rights. Nor was there material showing error in the damages assessment. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']