Harrison Inston t/a Ridgeline Roofing Solutions v Deborah Deitel & Russell Brennan [2024] NSWCATAP 147

Harrison Inston t/a Ridgeline Roofing Solutions v Deborah Deitel & Russell Brennan [2024] NSWCATAP 147

Leave to extend time was refused because the appeal was filed six months late, there was no reasonable explanation sufficient to justify the delay, the delay was extensive, there was a suggestion of prejudice, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects of success. The appellant was not denied procedural fairness because notices were served to the registered or last known business address in accordance with the Rules, and any lack of actual knowledge resulted from his failure to update ASIC records. The primary Tribunal was entitled to proceed ex parte and to decide the consumer claim on the unchallenged evidence, including the invoices and rectification quotes. The appellant did...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Consumer Claim Decision / Application to Extend Time for Filing Notice of Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to extend time for filing of the notice of appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'service of Hearing Notices' 'consumer Guarantees' 'defective Roofing Work' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']
['consumer Law' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['internal Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'service of Hearing Notices' 'consumer Guarantees' 'defective Roofing Work' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']

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 From a Consumer and Commercial Division Consumer Claim Decision / Application to Extend Time for Filing Notice of Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to extend time for filing the notice of appeal should be granted.' 'Whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness because the hearing proceeded in his absence after notice was sent to the registered business address.' "Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the appellant's roofing work was incomplete or defective." 'Whether the Tribunal should have taken into account an amount allegedly owed to the appellant under the contract and offset that amount against the payment order.' 'Whether the appellant established an error on a question of law or a basis for leave to appeal based on substantial miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to extend time was refused because the appeal was filed six months late, there was no reasonable explanation sufficient to justify the delay, the delay was extensive, there was a suggestion of prejudice, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects of success. The appellant was not denied procedural fairness because notices were served to the registered or last known business address in accordance with the Rules, and any lack of actual knowledge resulted from his failure to update ASIC records. The primary Tribunal was entitled to proceed ex parte and to decide the consumer claim on the unchallenged evidence, including the invoices and rectification quotes. The appellant did...

Court Disposition

Leave to extend time for filing of the notice of appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to extend time for filing of the notice of appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']