Barrett v Lee [2021] NSWCATAP 74
The appellant failed to demonstrate an arguable defence that could lead to a materially different result if the original decision were set aside and reheard. The Tribunal applied the correct legal principles, and no appealable error was shown in its discretionary refusal to set aside the orders made in the absence of the appellant.
- Parties
- Appellant: Keith Barrett; First Respondent: Maureen Lee; Second Respondent: Michelle Gomes
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 March 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Decision Made in Absence of a Party, Discretion to Set Aside Tribunal Orders, Appeal From Discretionary Decision, Covid 19 Related Tenancy Terminations
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Keith Barrett
Appellant
Maureen Lee
First Respondent
Michelle Gomes
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Tribunal erred in refusing to set aside a decision made in the absence of a party
- 2 Whether applicant had an arguable defence to original orders
- 3 Whether exercise of Tribunal’s discretion miscarried so as to justify appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to demonstrate an arguable defence that could lead to a materially different result if the original decision were set aside and reheard. The Tribunal applied the correct legal principles, and no appealable error was shown in its discretionary refusal to set aside the orders made in the absence of the appellant.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment