Jusayan v Ang [2018] NSWCATAP 103

Jusayan v Ang [2018] NSWCATAP 103

The appellant did not identify any error of law or any basis for finding a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Senior Member considered the identifiable parts of the appellant's poorly particularised claim in detail, and there was no issue of principle, public importance, reasonably clear injustice, clearly mistaken factual error, unfair fact-finding process, or significant new evidence. Leave to appeal was therefore refused and the appeal dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Appeal / Appeal Panel Application for Leave to Appeal From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['rent Reduction' 'compensation for Repairs' 'withdrawal of Goods, Services or Facilities' 'leave to Appeal' 'error of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']
['residential Tenancy Law' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Appeals'] ['rent Reduction' 'compensation for Repairs' 'withdrawal of Goods, Services or Facilities' 'leave to Appeal' 'error of Law' '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

Residential Tenancy Appeal / Appeal Panel Application for Leave to Appeal From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant identified any error of law in the Senior Member's decision." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis of a substantial miscarriage of justice.' "Whether the appellant's complaints about the Senior Member's consideration of evidence and hearing time justified appellate intervention." 'Whether the appeal should be used to rehear the original residential tenancy claim and recalculate compensation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not identify any error of law or any basis for finding a substantial miscarriage of justice. The Senior Member considered the identifiable parts of the appellant's poorly particularised claim in detail, and there was no issue of principle, public importance, reasonably clear injustice, clearly mistaken factual error, unfair fact-finding process, or significant new evidence. Leave to appeal was therefore refused and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']