Moore v CTTT & 2 Ors [2006] NSWSC 145

Moore v CTTT & 2 Ors [2006] NSWSC 145

The Tribunal Member was entitled, in the exercise of discretion, to refuse the adjournment on the grounds provided, and there was no denial of procedural fairness as the plaintiff's reasons were considered and the case was determined on the merits.

Parties
Plaintiff: Danielle Moore; First Defendant: Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal; Second Defendant: K A Burke; Third Defendant: B J Evans
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Adjournment, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Administrative Law Tenancy Law Procedural Fairness Adjournment Jurisdiction of Tribunal

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danielle Moore

Plaintiff

Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal

First Defendant

K A Burke

Second Defendant

B J Evans

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of the adjournment by the CTTT denied the plaintiff procedural fairness.
  2. 2 Whether the CTTT's decision should be quashed on the ground of lack of procedural fairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal Member was entitled, in the exercise of discretion, to refuse the adjournment on the grounds provided, and there was no denial of procedural fairness as the plaintiff's reasons were considered and the case was determined on the merits.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal decision affirmed.

Orders

  • The decision of Tribunal Member Cooper dated 14 January 2005 is affirmed.
  • The summons filed 18 March 2005 is dismissed.