Shaw v Hartman [2019] NSWCATAP 290

Shaw v Hartman [2019] NSWCATAP 290

The appeal was out of time and the tenant did not justify an extension: the delay was significant, no adequate reasons or supporting material were provided, refusal would not work an injustice, and the proposed appeal had no prospects of success because it sought to re-open matters resolved or affected by previous consent orders in the First Appeal, the Landlords' Application and the Landlords' Appeal, creating the possibility of conflicting orders barred by Anshun principles.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Appeal / Appeal Panel; Second Appeal From Tribunal Decision of 1 May 2019; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'appeal From NCAT Consumer and Commercial Division' 'retaliatory Termination Notice' 'excessive Rent and Loss of Amenity' 'consent Orders' 'anshun Estoppel']
['civil Procedure' 'residential Tenancy Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'appeal From NCAT Consumer and Commercial Division' 'retaliatory Termination Notice' 'excessive Rent and Loss of Amenity' 'consent Orders' 'anshun Estoppel']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Residential Tenancy Appeal / Appeal Panel; Second Appeal From Tribunal Decision of 1 May 2019; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the tenant should be granted an extension of time to lodge the second appeal.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had prospects of success where the tenant sought orders inconsistent with earlier consent orders.' 'Whether the tenant could re-argue issues concerning termination and alleged excessive rent that had been determined or resolved by consent orders.' 'Whether the tenant had significant new evidence not reasonably available at the original hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was out of time and the tenant did not justify an extension: the delay was significant, no adequate reasons or supporting material were provided, refusal would not work an injustice, and the proposed appeal had no prospects of success because it sought to re-open matters resolved or affected by previous consent orders in the First Appeal, the Landlords' Application and the Landlords' Appeal, creating the possibility of conflicting orders barred by Anshun principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']