Como Leather Pty Ltd v Harris [2017] NSWCATAP 95

Como Leather Pty Ltd v Harris [2017] NSWCATAP 95

The Appeal Panel held that Como Leather did not establish any error of law. The Tribunal Member’s conclusion that Como Leather had been given a reasonable time to remedy the defect was open on the evidence, including the failure to complete repairs by the consent order deadline or by the hearing date, and the reasons were adequate when read as a whole. The Panel also was not satisfied that Como Leather may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice, so leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Consumer Claim Decision Concerning Supply of a Leather Lounge and Remedies for Breach of Consumer Guarantees / Internal Appeal to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Panel; Leave to Appeal Sought on Grounds Other Than Questions of Law
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['consumer Guarantee as to Acceptable Quality' 'rejection of Goods' 'reasonable Time to Remedy Failure' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'error of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'leave to Appeal']
['consumer Law' 'civil and Administrative Law' 'tribunal Appeals'] ['consumer Guarantee as to Acceptable Quality' 'rejection of Goods' 'reasonable Time to Remedy Failure' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'error of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'leave to Appeal']

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 Claim Decision Concerning Supply of a Leather Lounge and Remedies for Breach of Consumer Guarantees / Internal Appeal to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Panel; Leave to Appeal Sought on Grounds Other Than Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in determining that Ms Harris was entitled to reject the goods under s 259(2)(b) of the ACL (NSW).' 'Whether the Tribunal gave adequate reasons for finding that Como Leather had been given a reasonable time to remedy the failure.' 'Whether there was evidence to support the finding that Como Leather failed to remedy the defect within a reasonable time.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted because the decision was not fair and equitable, was against the weight of evidence, or significant new evidence had arisen.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that Como Leather did not establish any error of law. The Tribunal Member’s conclusion that Como Leather had been given a reasonable time to remedy the defect was open on the evidence, including the failure to complete repairs by the consent order deadline or by the hearing date, and the reasons were adequate when read as a whole. The Panel also was not satisfied that Como Leather may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice, so leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused' 'Appeal dismissed']