Le v Citystruct Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] NSWCATAP 166

Le v Citystruct Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] NSWCATAP 166

Leave to adduce fresh evidence was refused because the statutory declarations were not shown to be evidence that was not reasonably available at the original hearing and, in any event, did not address the critical issue of who authorised the window works. Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal otherwise dismissed because the appellant did not demonstrate legal error or a substantial miscarriage of justice, the appeal against Citystruct had already been dismissed after deregistration, no utility or power was shown to vary the goods collection order against non-possessing individual respondents, and no legal basis or evidence established personal liability of the second, third or fourth...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal / Application for Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence and Leave to Appeal; Appeal Otherwise Heard and Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to adduce fresh evidence refused; leave to appeal refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'fresh Evidence Not Reasonably Available' 'liability of Third Parties for Actions of Real Estate Agent' 'unauthorised Works to Rental Property' 'return of Commercial Equipment']
['administrative Law' 'consumer and Commercial' 'real Estate Agency' 'property Management'] ['leave to Appeal' 'fresh Evidence Not Reasonably Available' 'liability of Third Parties for Actions of Real Estate Agent' 'unauthorised Works to Rental Property' 'return of Commercial Equipment']

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 From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal / Application for Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence and Leave to Appeal; Appeal Otherwise Heard and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to adduce statutory declarations as fresh evidence on appeal.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Consumer and Commercial Division decision.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to find that the respondents were responsible for unauthorised works, including cutting a window opening, electrical work, tiling work and removal of a fire door.' 'Whether order 2 for collection of commercial equipment should be varied to identify specific items and premises.' 'Whether the second, third and fourth respondents could be personally liable for amounts or goods connected with the acts of Citystruct Pty Ltd.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to adduce fresh evidence was refused because the statutory declarations were not shown to be evidence that was not reasonably available at the original hearing and, in any event, did not address the critical issue of who authorised the window works. Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal otherwise dismissed because the appellant did not demonstrate legal error or a substantial miscarriage of justice, the appeal against Citystruct had already been dismissed after deregistration, no utility or power was shown to vary the goods collection order against non-possessing individual respondents, and no legal basis or evidence established personal liability of the second, third or fourth...

Court Disposition

Leave to adduce fresh evidence refused; leave to appeal refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to adduce fresh evidence is refused' 'Leave to appeal is refused' 'The appeal is otherwise dismissed']