Golding v Salloum [2016] NSWCATAP 267

Golding v Salloum [2016] NSWCATAP 267

The appeal on a question of law failed because there was evidence identified in the first instance reasons upon which it was open to the Senior Member to find that the purchase price of the vehicle was $14,000, and the appellant's solicitor properly conceded as much. Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant did not establish that he may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice: the additional documents had not been served, were not shown to be relevant to the agreed sale price, were not significant new evidence unavailable at first instance, and no transcript or sound recording supported the assertion that he was prevented from giving evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Consumer Claim Concerning Sale of a Defective Motor Vehicle / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['defective Motor Vehicle' 'australian Consumer Law Consumer Guarantees' 'refund of Purchase Price' 'no Evidence Ground as Question of Law' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'additional Evidence on Appeal']
['consumer Law' 'administrative Law' 'motor Vehicle Dealers' 'appeals'] ['defective Motor Vehicle' 'australian Consumer Law Consumer Guarantees' 'refund of Purchase Price' 'no Evidence Ground as Question of Law' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'additional Evidence on Appeal']

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 Consumer and Commercial Division Consumer Claim Concerning Sale of a Defective Motor Vehicle / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was evidence before the Tribunal upon which it could find that the purchase price of the vehicle was $14,000.' 'Whether the appellant should be granted leave to appeal on the basis that the purchase price was $7,900 rather than $14,000.' 'Whether additional documentary evidence should be received on the appeal.' 'Whether the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice because the decision was not fair and equitable, was against the weight of evidence, or significant new evidence had arisen.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal on a question of law failed because there was evidence identified in the first instance reasons upon which it was open to the Senior Member to find that the purchase price of the vehicle was $14,000, and the appellant's solicitor properly conceded as much. Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant did not establish that he may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice: the additional documents had not been served, were not shown to be relevant to the agreed sale price, were not significant new evidence unavailable at first instance, and no transcript or sound recording supported the assertion that he was prevented from giving evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal is refused.']