Rurik v Travers [2020] NSWCATAP 242

Rurik v Travers [2020] NSWCATAP 242

The Tribunal's decisive reason for refusing an extension of time was that the appellant's distress claim had no prospects because s 16(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) applied. In light of Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd, that conclusion was an error of law because the claim did not allege physical injury or psychiatric illness and was not a claim for personal injury or non-economic loss within s 16(1). The refusal to extend time was therefore founded upon a wrong principle and the orders had to be set aside and the matter remitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning a Boarding House Occupancy Dispute / Appeal Panel Decision on Question of Law; Appeal Allowed and Proceedings Remitted
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of 31 July 2020 set aside; proceedings remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'termination of Boarding House Occupancy Agreement' 'occupancy Principles' 'damages for Distress and Disappointment' 'application of S 16 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)' 'error of Law']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'boarding Houses' 'civil Liability' 'contract Law' 'consumer Law'] ['extension of Time' 'termination of Boarding House Occupancy Agreement' 'occupancy Principles' 'damages for Distress and Disappointment' 'application of S 16 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)' 'error of Law']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning a Boarding House Occupancy Dispute / Appeal Panel Decision on Question of Law; Appeal Allowed and Proceedings Remitted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal erred in law by treating the appellant's claim for mental distress as subject to s 16(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)." "Whether the Tribunal's refusal to extend time was founded on a wrong principle." "Whether the proceedings should be remitted for reconsideration of the extension of time application and, if granted, the appellant's claims."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's decisive reason for refusing an extension of time was that the appellant's distress claim had no prospects because s 16(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) applied. In light of Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd, that conclusion was an error of law because the claim did not allege physical injury or psychiatric illness and was not a claim for personal injury or non-economic loss within s 16(1). The refusal to extend time was therefore founded upon a wrong principle and the orders had to be set aside and the matter remitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of 31 July 2020 set aside; proceedings remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'Set aside the orders made by the Tribunal on 31 July 2020.' "Remit the proceedings to a differently constituted Tribunal for a new hearing and re-determination of the appellant's application for an extension of time to bring his claim and, if an extension is granted, the appellant's...