Bowers v Nair [2021] NSWCATAP 39

Bowers v Nair [2021] NSWCATAP 39

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged matters were interlocutory directions concerning practice and procedure, no relevant error or substantial injustice was shown, several complaints had no utility or were matters for the Registrar or the Tribunal at a future hearing, and there was no basis on the material for discovery or for appellate intervention about summonses.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decisions in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel; on the Papers
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal the interlocutory decisions made 22 October 2020 was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decision' 'tribunal Directions' 'summonses' 'discovery' 'open Justice' 'water Usage Charges']
['practice and Procedure' 'residential Tenancies' 'administrative Law'] ['leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decision' 'tribunal Directions' 'summonses' 'discovery' 'open Justice' 'water Usage Charges']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decisions in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel; on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal interlocutory directions made on 22 October 2020.' "Whether the allocated hearing time or listing arrangements infringed the appellant's opportunity to be heard." 'Whether the Appeal Panel should deal with alleged post-hearing communications, access to the Tribunal file or sound recording, or an application for disqualification.' 'Whether Mr Tirandez Kermani should be prohibited from attending future hearings.' 'Whether any error was shown in relation to summonses or discovery.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged matters were interlocutory directions concerning practice and procedure, no relevant error or substantial injustice was shown, several complaints had no utility or were matters for the Registrar or the Tribunal at a future hearing, and there was no basis on the material for discovery or for appellate intervention about summonses.

Court Disposition

The application for leave to appeal the interlocutory decisions made 22 October 2020 was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal the interlocutory decisions made 22 October 2020 is dismissed.' 'The applicants in each of applications RT 20/35192 (Bowers application) and RT 20/35629 (Karsai application) are to serve any further evidence on or before 13 March 2020.' 'The respondents in each of the Bowers...