Chaw v Jenkinson and Coverall Services Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 174

Chaw v Jenkinson and Coverall Services Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 174

The appeal failed because the Appellant did not identify evidence or legal error undermining the Tribunal's central finding that neither Ms Jenkinson nor Coverall Services Pty Ltd had been shown to be involved in Coverall NSW Pty Ltd's misleading and deceptive conduct within s 236 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW). Ms Jenkinson's unchallenged affidavit evidence was that she had no dealings with the Appellant and no knowledge of the dealings by which he acquired the franchise, and the Appellant's assertions about later asset transfers, refunds, solvency statements and company responsibility did not establish accessorial liability. The late provision of written submissions did not amount...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dismissing Consumer Law Damages Claim / Appeal Panel; Leave to Appeal Sought and Appeal Determined
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'accessorial Liability' 'franchise Dispute' 'procedural Fairness' 'internal Appeals' 'merger of Cause of Action' 'anshun Estoppel' 'liquidation Stay' 'costs']
['consumer Law' 'corporations Law' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'accessorial Liability' 'franchise Dispute' 'procedural Fairness' 'internal Appeals' 'merger of Cause of Action' 'anshun Estoppel' 'liquidation Stay' 'costs']

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 Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dismissing Consumer Law Damages Claim / Appeal Panel; Leave to Appeal Sought and Appeal Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Appellant established any error in the Tribunal's finding that the Respondents were not involved in Coverall NSW Pty Ltd's misleading and deceptive conduct within the meaning of s 236 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW)." "Whether late provision of the Respondents' written submissions denied the Appellant procedural fairness." "Whether the Appellant's claim against the Respondents had merged in the earlier CTTT determination against Coverall NSW Pty Ltd or was otherwise barred because the Respondents were not joined in the original proceedings." "Whether the liquidation of Coverall NSW Pty Ltd stayed the Appellant's proceedings against the Respondents." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Appellant did not identify evidence or legal error undermining the Tribunal's central finding that neither Ms Jenkinson nor Coverall Services Pty Ltd had been shown to be involved in Coverall NSW Pty Ltd's misleading and deceptive conduct within s 236 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW). Ms Jenkinson's unchallenged affidavit evidence was that she had no dealings with the Appellant and no knowledge of the dealings by which he acquired the franchise, and the Appellant's assertions about later asset transfers, refunds, solvency statements and company responsibility did not establish accessorial liability. The late provision of written submissions did not amount...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'The Respondents are to provide to the Appeal Unit and to the Appellant written submissions on the question of costs within 10 days of the date of these reasons.' 'The Appellant is to provide to the Appeal Unit and to the Respondents written submissions in...