Bombardieri v Milsom [2022] NSWCATAP 330

Bombardieri v Milsom [2022] NSWCATAP 330

The procedural fairness ground failed because Ms Bombardieri accepted that she had received the documents on which Mr Milsom relied, and Mr Milsom had no obligation to tender bank statements for other accounts; Ms Bombardieri could have sought a summons under s 48 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The adequacy of reasons ground was upheld because the Tribunal gave no basic explanation for finding that blinds, floor coverings and carer's payment claims were not uncollected goods, but the appeal on those matters was dismissed under s 81(1)(a) because there was insufficient evidence that Ms Bombardieri owned those items. Leave to appeal was refused because Ms...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in Uncollected Goods Proceedings Under the Uncollected Goods Act 1995 (nsw) / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 1 July 2022
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'uncollected Goods' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'fresh Evidence']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'consumer and Commercial Law' 'bailment'] ['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'uncollected Goods' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'fresh Evidence']

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

Internal Appeal in Uncollected Goods Proceedings Under the Uncollected Goods Act 1995 (nsw) / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 1 July 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to afford procedural fairness to Ms Bombardieri.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to provide proper reasons.' 'Whether Ms Bombardieri may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice within cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), and if so whether leave to appeal should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The procedural fairness ground failed because Ms Bombardieri accepted that she had received the documents on which Mr Milsom relied, and Mr Milsom had no obligation to tender bank statements for other accounts; Ms Bombardieri could have sought a summons under s 48 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The adequacy of reasons ground was upheld because the Tribunal gave no basic explanation for finding that blinds, floor coverings and carer's payment claims were not uncollected goods, but the appeal on those matters was dismissed under s 81(1)(a) because there was insufficient evidence that Ms Bombardieri owned those items. Leave to appeal was refused because Ms...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']