Ormes v Lewis & 1 Ors [No 2] [2006] NSWSC 659

Ormes v Lewis & 1 Ors [No 2] [2006] NSWSC 659

The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an error on a question within the ambit of s 67(1). The complaints either misconceived what the Senior Member had done or concerned findings of fact. The Tribunal reopened the transaction, had regard to the public interest and all the circumstances of the case, made a determination concerning clause 9.5, and exercised powers under s 71; no relevant error was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal From the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW / Appeal Under S 67(1) of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 on a Further Amended Summons
Outcome
The appeal fails. The proceedings are dismissed.
Legal Topics
['ambit of Statutory Appeal' 'reopening of Unjust Transaction' 'contract for Sale of Land' 'forfeiture of Instalments' 'repayment of Moneys']
['administrative Law' 'consumer Credit' 'contracts' 'real Property'] ['ambit of Statutory Appeal' 'reopening of Unjust Transaction' 'contract for Sale of Land' 'forfeiture of Instalments' 'repayment of Moneys']

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

Statutory Appeal From the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW / Appeal Under S 67(1) of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 on a Further Amended Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the transaction was unjust within the meaning of s 70 of the Consumer Credit Code 1996.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in reopening the transaction and awarding compensation under s 71 of the Consumer Credit Code 1996.' "Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that clause 9.5 of the contract was not reasonably necessary to protect the Plaintiff's legitimate interests." 'Whether the Tribunal erred in calculating compensation without taking into account damages available to the Plaintiff for termination of the contract.' 'Whether the alleged errors fell within the ambit of an appeal under s 67(1) of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an error on a question within the ambit of s 67(1). The complaints either misconceived what the Senior Member had done or concerned findings of fact. The Tribunal reopened the transaction, had regard to the public interest and all the circumstances of the case, made a determination concerning clause 9.5, and exercised powers under s 71; no relevant error was shown.

Court Disposition

The appeal fails. The proceedings are dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Save for one aspect, the Plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings.' 'The Defendants are to pay the costs thrown away by reason of the vacation of the hearing date on 8 May 2006.' 'The Exhibits may be returned.']