Klaus v Wallace [2021] NSWCATAP 375

Klaus v Wallace [2021] NSWCATAP 375

The Tribunal erred in law by not properly considering whether Daniel Klaus was a 'supplier' under the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), and denied him procedural fairness in joining him personally as a respondent without adequate notice. The Member's reasoning did not satisfactorily establish Klaus's legal liability to Wallace under the consumer claim provisions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Determination
Legal Topics
['consumer Claims' 'procedural Fairness' 'supplier Liability' 'australian Consumer Law']
['consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['consumer Claims' 'procedural Fairness' 'supplier Liability' 'australian Consumer 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Daniel Klaus was a proper respondent under the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)' 'Whether Daniel Klaus was denied procedural fairness in being joined as a respondent']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by not properly considering whether Daniel Klaus was a 'supplier' under the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), and denied him procedural fairness in joining him personally as a respondent without adequate notice. The Member's reasoning did not satisfactorily establish Klaus's legal liability to Wallace under the consumer claim provisions.

Court Disposition

Orders

  • []