Mohamud v Raad [2023] NSWCATAP 324

Mohamud v Raad [2023] NSWCATAP 324

The Appeal Panel found no adequate grounds to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal, as the delay was lengthy, the reasons insufficient, and the appeal had very limited prospects of success. The applicants were represented by a solicitor and supported by an interpreter at the original hearing, mitigating claims of procedural unfairness. There was no error in the making of consent orders by the Tribunal, and any new evidence could reasonably have been prepared earlier. Leave to appeal was therefore refused and the appeal dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Application to extend time refused; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'consent Orders' 'fresh Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['tenancy' 'administrative Law'] ['procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'consent Orders' 'fresh Evidence' '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

Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to file a notice of appeal' 'Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness in the Tribunal proceedings' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted based on new evidence or that the decision was not fair and equitable or against the weight of the evidence' 'Whether consent orders should be set aside']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel found no adequate grounds to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal, as the delay was lengthy, the reasons insufficient, and the appeal had very limited prospects of success. The applicants were represented by a solicitor and supported by an interpreter at the original hearing, mitigating claims of procedural unfairness. There was no error in the making of consent orders by the Tribunal, and any new evidence could reasonably have been prepared earlier. Leave to appeal was therefore refused and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time refused; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application to extend the time for filing the Notice of Appeal to 27 September 2023 is refused.' 'The appeal is otherwise dismissed.']