Layoun v Multiproperties Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWCATAP 223

Layoun v Multiproperties Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWCATAP 223

The respondent was required to repay $20,948.20 because the Appeal Panel had found that the appellant was not liable to pay that amount, the respondent had obtained it at the appellant's expense, there was no onus on the appellant to prove prejudice from being kept out of his money, and the respondent's concerns about a possible future costs order and enforcement difficulties did not provide a sufficient basis to refuse or defer restitution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Consequential Orders / On the Papers After Appeal Panel Decision, Concerning Repayment of Moneys Paid Under a First Instance Judgment Partially Set Aside on Appeal
Outcome
Hearing dispensed with and repayment order made in favour of the appellant.
Legal Topics
['appeals' 'consequential Orders' 'restitution' 'overpayment After Appeal' 'security for Costs' 'dispensing With Hearing']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'retail Leases'] ['appeals' 'consequential Orders' 'restitution' 'overpayment After Appeal' 'security for Costs' 'dispensing With Hearing']

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; Consequential Orders / On the Papers After Appeal Panel Decision, Concerning Repayment of Moneys Paid Under a First Instance Judgment Partially Set Aside on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Appeal Panel should dispense with a hearing concerning repayment of moneys found not to have been owed.' 'Whether the respondent should be ordered to repay $20,948.20 paid by the appellant in excess of the amount found owing on appeal.' 'Whether the possibility of a future costs order in favour of the respondent on remittal justified declining or deferring restitution of the overpayment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was required to repay $20,948.20 because the Appeal Panel had found that the appellant was not liable to pay that amount, the respondent had obtained it at the appellant's expense, there was no onus on the appellant to prove prejudice from being kept out of his money, and the respondent's concerns about a possible future costs order and enforcement difficulties did not provide a sufficient basis to refuse or defer restitution.

Court Disposition

Hearing dispensed with and repayment order made in favour of the appellant.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) dispense with a hearing concerning whether the respondent should repay the appellant the moneys found not to have been owed.' 'Order the respondent Multiproperties Pty Ltd to pay to the appellant George Layoun, within 14 days of the date of...