ALLKINS & 1 Ors v CONSUMER TRADER AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL & 1 Ors [2006] NSWSC 1093

ALLKINS & 1 Ors v CONSUMER TRADER AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL & 1 Ors [2006] NSWSC 1093

The summons was out of time and the proposed challenge lacked merit. The pet rules were not shown to be inconsistent with the statutory right to quiet enjoyment, were within the general power to make rules about pets, and any policy to phase out pets was not shown to be unreasonable. The plaintiffs did not make a timely request for reasons under s 49, the notice of order could in any event be regarded as containing sufficient brief reasons, and no denial of procedural fairness was established. It would therefore be futile to grant an extension of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal or Challenge From Decision of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW / Application for Extension of Time and Summons Seeking to Set Aside Tribunal Orders
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs of the summons.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'reasons for Decision' 'validity of Residential Park Pet Rules' 'quiet Enjoyment' 'statutory Appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal']
['administrative Law' 'residential Parks and Tenancy' 'civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'reasons for Decision' 'validity of Residential Park Pet Rules' 'quiet Enjoyment' 'statutory Appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal']

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 or Challenge From Decision of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW / Application for Extension of Time and Summons Seeking to Set Aside Tribunal Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted for a summons brought out of time.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to give reasons or comply with s 49 of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW).' 'Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness under s 65 of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW).' "Whether the Valhalla Village pet rules were invalid because they were inconsistent with the resident's right to quiet enjoyment under s 20 of the Residential Parks Act 1998 (NSW)." 'Whether a duty should be implied requiring the power to make park rules to be exercised only reasonably, and whether the pet rules were unreasonable.' 'Whether the power to make park rules relating to the keeping of pets extended to rules restricting pets entering the village or replacement of pets.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was out of time and the proposed challenge lacked merit. The pet rules were not shown to be inconsistent with the statutory right to quiet enjoyment, were within the general power to make rules about pets, and any policy to phase out pets was not shown to be unreasonable. The plaintiffs did not make a timely request for reasons under s 49, the notice of order could in any event be regarded as containing sufficient brief reasons, and no denial of procedural fairness was established. It would therefore be futile to grant an extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; summons dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the costs of the summons.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time is refused.' 'The summons is dismissed.' 'The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the summons.' 'The exhibit may be returned.']