Almedyab v Gregory [2022] NSWCATAP 205

Almedyab v Gregory [2022] NSWCATAP 205

The extension of time was refused because strict compliance with the appeal time limit would not work an injustice to the appellants. The appeal had no utility because the alleged offsetting claim had been heard and dismissed on the merits in separate Tribunal proceedings. In any event, the appellants did not provide the sound recording of the first instance hearing or a transcript of the relevant parts, making it impossible to accept their contention that they were denied procedural fairness at that hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge Appeal and Appeal to the Appeal Panel
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['arrears of Rent' 'extension of Time' 'internal Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'offsetting Claim' 'utility of Appeal']
['residential Tenancies' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['arrears of Rent' 'extension of Time' 'internal Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'offsetting Claim' 'utility of Appeal']

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

Internal Appeal in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge Appeal and Appeal to the Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants should be granted an extension of time to lodge the internal appeal.' "Whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness by allegedly failing to hear and consider the appellants' alleged offsetting claim against the landlord." 'Whether the appeal had utility where the alleged offsetting claim had been heard and dismissed on the merits in separate Tribunal proceedings.' 'Whether the appellants established procedural unfairness without providing the sound recording of the hearing at first instance and a transcript of the relevant parts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because strict compliance with the appeal time limit would not work an injustice to the appellants. The appeal had no utility because the alleged offsetting claim had been heard and dismissed on the merits in separate Tribunal proceedings. In any event, the appellants did not provide the sound recording of the first instance hearing or a transcript of the relevant parts, making it impossible to accept their contention that they were denied procedural fairness at that hearing.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appellants application for an extension of time in which to lodge his appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']