Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd v Faour [2019] NSWCATAP 159

Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd v Faour [2019] NSWCATAP 159

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal erred in law by refusing to admit the appellant's statement and credit note. Although directions had required earlier filing of evidence, the documents had previously been sent to the respondent and their admission would not have caused prejudice. The refusal denied the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Orders in Consumer and Commercial Division Proceedings GEN 18/43088 / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From Decision Dated 22 February 2019
Outcome
Appeal upheld; orders made on 22 February 2019 set aside; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal on Question of Law' 'procedural Fairness' 'refusal to Admit Evidence' 'consumer Claims Jurisdiction' 'hire Agreement Guarantee' 'refund of Overpayment']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'consumer Law' 'contract Law'] ['appeal on Question of Law' 'procedural Fairness' 'refusal to Admit Evidence' 'consumer Claims Jurisdiction' 'hire Agreement Guarantee' 'refund of Overpayment']

Source-derived case record

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 Orders in Consumer and Commercial Division Proceedings GEN 18/43088 / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From Decision Dated 22 February 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal made an error of law by refusing to accept late evidence tendered by the appellant at the first instance hearing.' 'Whether refusal of the statement and credit note denied the appellant procedural fairness in circumstances where their admission would not have prejudiced the respondent.' 'Whether the orders requiring the appellant to refund money to the respondent should be set aside.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal erred in law by refusing to admit the appellant's statement and credit note. Although directions had required earlier filing of evidence, the documents had previously been sent to the respondent and their admission would not have caused prejudice. The refusal denied the appellant an opportunity to verify the basis of its charges, including the credit for hire fees and the replacement charge for the missing shaft, and the result would have been different if the evidence had been considered.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; orders made on 22 February 2019 set aside; application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld;' 'The orders made on 22 February 2019 in GEN 18/43088 are set aside; and' 'Application GEN 18/43088 is dismissed']