Tohme v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 177

Tohme v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATOD 177

The Tribunal extended time because, applying the correct calculation, the application was only approximately one month late; the Applicant was self-represented and not a frequent Tribunal participant; the Respondent identified no relevant prejudice beyond further legal costs; although the explanation for delay was less than satisfactory, the review had substantial merit if the Applicant could substantiate his asserted work experience; and insisting on strict compliance would be very unfair given the significance of the licence to the Applicant's occupation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Application Concerning Refusal of a Contractor Licence Under the Home Building Act 1989 (nsw), With an Application for Extension of Time / Procedural Ruling on Preliminary Issue of Extension of Time, Decided on the Papers
Outcome
Extension of time granted; hearing dispensed with.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'contractor Licence' 'internal Review' 'administrative Review' 'hearing on the Papers']
['administrative Law' 'occupational Licensing' 'home Building'] ['extension of Time' 'contractor Licence' 'internal Review' 'administrative Review' 'hearing on the Papers']

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

Administrative Review Application Concerning Refusal of a Contractor Licence Under the Home Building Act 1989 (nsw), With an Application for Extension of Time / Procedural Ruling on Preliminary Issue of Extension of Time, Decided on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the time for filing the Applicant's application for administrative review should be extended to 1 April 2022." 'Whether strict compliance with the filing time limit would work an injustice on the Applicant.' 'Whether the Tribunal should dispense with a hearing and determine the extension issue on the papers.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal extended time because, applying the correct calculation, the application was only approximately one month late; the Applicant was self-represented and not a frequent Tribunal participant; the Respondent identified no relevant prejudice beyond further legal costs; although the explanation for delay was less than satisfactory, the review had substantial merit if the Applicant could substantiate his asserted work experience; and insisting on strict compliance would be very unfair given the significance of the licence to the Applicant's occupation.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; hearing dispensed with.

Orders

  • ['The time for filing of the application is extended to 1 April 2022.' 'The Tribunal dispenses with a hearing in this matter in accordance with section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).']