Patil v Goru [2018] NSWCATAP 161

Procedural Posture

Appeal From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Before the Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['Whether the appellants identified any question of law giving a right of appeal.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted because the decision under appeal was not fair and equitable.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted because the decision under appeal was against the weight of evidence.' 'Whether significant new evidence had arisen that was not reasonably available at the time of the proceeding under appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants identified no question of law and required leave to appeal. The fast delivery of the decision did not show that relevant material was not considered, the issues were not complex, and no substantial miscarriage of justice was demonstrated. The challenges to the findings on credibility, the 16 October 2017 video, the source of the damage, and alternative suspects did not show that the decision was against the weight of evidence. The medical certificate was reasonably available at the original hearing and was not significant because the Tribunal found the damage was caused by Mr Patil or Ms Desai, or both. Leave to appeal was therefore refused and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

• ['Application for leave to appeal refused' 'Appeal dismissed']