Cleanairflow Solutions Pty Ltd v Edmonds [2021] NSWCATAP 131

Cleanairflow Solutions Pty Ltd v Edmonds [2021] NSWCATAP 131

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed because the appellant did not provide a transcript or sound recording of the hearing below, so the Appeal Panel could not conclude that there was no evidence for the Tribunal's findings or that the findings were against the weight of all the evidence. In any event, the 10 January 2020 Report provided evidence of the initial failures, and it was open to the Tribunal to accept that evidence. The Tribunal's reasoning was not shown to depend on an unsupported finding that the wheel hub itself was defective; the essential failure was that the wheel fell off, which the Tribunal could treat as a failure of acceptable quality in circumstances...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Australian Consumer Law Consumer Guarantees for a Caravan / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Before the Appeal Panel
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; stay lifted.
Legal Topics
['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'major Failure' 'leave to Appeal' 'error of Law' 'no Evidence Ground' 'weight of Evidence' 'failure to Comply With Directions']
['consumer Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality' 'major Failure' 'leave to Appeal' 'error of Law' 'no Evidence Ground' 'weight of Evidence' 'failure to Comply With Directions']

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 Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Australian Consumer Law Consumer Guarantees for a Caravan / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Before the Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in law by making findings for which there was no evidence about the initial failures with the caravan.' "Whether the Tribunal's findings about the initial failures were against the weight of evidence." 'Whether there was no evidence to support a finding that a defect allowed the wheel to come off from the hub.' 'Whether the finding that damage to the caravan was caused by a defective hub and wheel falling off was against the weight of evidence.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and cl 12 of Sch 4.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed because the appellant did not provide a transcript or sound recording of the hearing below, so the Appeal Panel could not conclude that there was no evidence for the Tribunal's findings or that the findings were against the weight of all the evidence. In any event, the 10 January 2020 Report provided evidence of the initial failures, and it was open to the Tribunal to accept that evidence. The Tribunal's reasoning was not shown to depend on an unsupported finding that the wheel hub itself was defective; the essential failure was that the wheel fell off, which the Tribunal could treat as a failure of acceptable quality in circumstances...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; stay lifted.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'The stay ordered on 8 December 2020 is lifted.']