Harley Kismet Pty Ltd t/as Kismet Riverside Lodge v Hood [2018] NSWCATAP 134

Harley Kismet Pty Ltd t/as Kismet Riverside Lodge v Hood [2018] NSWCATAP 134

The application for extension of time to appeal is refused as no adequate explanation for delay was provided and the merits of the appeal are weak. The site agreement is governed by the RLLC Act, not the repealed RP Act, and the Tribunal did not err in applying the law to the calculation of the service availability charge or in ordering provision of electricity bills under s 83 of the RLLC Act.

Parties
Appellant: Harley Kismet Pty Ltd t/as Kismet Riverside Lodge; First Respondent: Michael Hood; Second Respondent: Elizabeth Hood
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed – application for extension of time refused; stay lifted.
Legal Topics
Service Availability Charge, Supply of Electricity, Transitional Provisions, Extension of Time to Appeal
Residential Tenancies Consumer Law Service Availability Charge Supply of Electricity Transitional Provisions Extension of Time to Appeal

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harley Kismet Pty Ltd t/as Kismet Riverside Lodge

Appellant

Michael Hood

First Respondent

Elizabeth Hood

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for extension of time to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Interpretation and application of the Residential Land Lease Communities Act 2013 (NSW) to the site agreement
  3. 3 Proper calculation of the service availability charge under the relevant legislation

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time to appeal is refused as no adequate explanation for delay was provided and the merits of the appeal are weak. The site agreement is governed by the RLLC Act, not the repealed RP Act, and the Tribunal did not err in applying the law to the calculation of the service availability charge or in ordering provision of electricity bills under s 83 of the RLLC Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed – application for extension of time refused; stay lifted.

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time in which to appeal is dismissed.
  • The appeal is dismissed.