De Leon v Saade Construction Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 377

De Leon v Saade Construction Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 377

The Appeal Panel refused the extension of time because the 30 day delay was not satisfactorily explained, the appellant did not identify significant new evidence and her explanation for delay in obtaining unidentified evidence lacked credibility, the proposed appeal was not even fairly arguable, and there was no utility in granting the extension because the Panel could not make the orders sought by the appellant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'late Notice of Appeal' 'termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'possession Order' 'fresh or Significant New Evidence' 'tribunal Jurisdiction']
['residential Tenancy' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'late Notice of Appeal' 'termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'possession Order' 'fresh or Significant New Evidence' 'tribunal Jurisdiction']

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

Internal Appeal in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant should be granted an extension of time under s 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) to file a Notice of Appeal out of time.' 'Whether the appellant provided a satisfactory explanation for the 30 day delay in filing the Notice of Appeal.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success to justify an extension of time.' 'Whether the Appeal Panel had jurisdiction or utility in making the orders sought by the appellant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel refused the extension of time because the 30 day delay was not satisfactorily explained, the appellant did not identify significant new evidence and her explanation for delay in obtaining unidentified evidence lacked credibility, the proposed appeal was not even fairly arguable, and there was no utility in granting the extension because the Panel could not make the orders sought by the appellant.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The appellant's application for an extension of time to file her Notice of Appeal is refused." 'The appeal is dismissed.']