FleetServ Pty Ltd v Maiden Co Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 268

FleetServ Pty Ltd v Maiden Co Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 268

There was no denial of procedural fairness because the appellant had notice and actual knowledge of the in-person hearing, no credible explanation was provided for the absence of any representative in person or by telephone, the Tribunal did call a correct number answered by Mr Khan, the appellant could have called into the Tribunal during the hearing, and the Tribunal had taken reasonably practicable measures to provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The challenge to Order 3 was moot or, alternatively, any error caused no substantial injustice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Orders of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal / Appeal Panel Decision on Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order, and Appeal
Outcome
Extension of time granted; leave to appeal from Order 3 refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'appeal Extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'hearing in Absence of a Party' 'appearance by Telephone or Avl' 'duty to Cooperate With the Tribunal' 'motor Vehicle Repair Costs' 'australian Consumer Law Acceptable Quality']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'consumer Law'] ['procedural Fairness' 'appeal Extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'hearing in Absence of a Party' 'appearance by Telephone or Avl' 'duty to Cooperate With the Tribunal' 'motor Vehicle Repair Costs' 'australian Consumer Law Acceptable Quality']

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 From Orders of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal / Appeal Panel Decision on Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order, and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant should be granted an extension of time to lodge the appeal.' 'Whether the Tribunal denied the appellant procedural fairness by proceeding in its absence and making a money order.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to telephone the appellant on the correct number or failed to make a second call to the appellant.' 'Whether the Tribunal deliberately excluded the appellant from putting its case, including by setting aside leave to appear by telephone or AVL.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from Order 3 setting aside leave to appear by telephone or AVL.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no denial of procedural fairness because the appellant had notice and actual knowledge of the in-person hearing, no credible explanation was provided for the absence of any representative in person or by telephone, the Tribunal did call a correct number answered by Mr Khan, the appellant could have called into the Tribunal during the hearing, and the Tribunal had taken reasonably practicable measures to provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The challenge to Order 3 was moot or, alternatively, any error caused no substantial injustice.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; leave to appeal from Order 3 refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appellant is granted an extension of time until 20 June 2023 in which to lodge the appeal.' 'Leave to appeal from Order 3 of the orders made by the Tribunal on 17 April 2023 is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']