Netregistry Pty Ltd v Shabandeh [2018] NSWCATAP 5

Netregistry Pty Ltd v Shabandeh [2018] NSWCATAP 5

The appellant was afforded procedural fairness because it knew from the earlier Appeal Panel decision that the remitted hearing concerned the appropriate remedy, it attended the hearing, it was given time to confer and address the issue, and it did not raise the SEO refund argument or seek an adjournment. Any failure caused by directions being mislaid within the appellant's office was the appellant's fault, and even if the directions were not received, the circumstances did not establish unfairness. The new SEO argument should have been raised at the hearing and was too late to ventilate on appeal. As there was no denial of procedural fairness, the decision was not shown to be not fair...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Panel / Decision on Appeal From the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 12 September 2017
Outcome
The appeal was dismissed and no costs order was made in favour of the respondent.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'internal Appeals' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'costs' 'remedies Under the Fair Trading Act 1987']
['administrative Law' 'consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['procedural Fairness' 'internal Appeals' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'costs' 'remedies Under the Fair Trading Act 1987']

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

Internal Appeal to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Panel / Decision on Appeal From the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 12 September 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness because it allegedly did not receive directions to file evidence or submissions before the remitted hearing on remedy.' "Whether the Tribunal's decision requiring repayment of $9,791.00 was not fair and equitable or was against the weight of evidence." 'Whether the appellant could raise on appeal a new argument that the $4,491.00 attributed to the SEO service should not be refunded.' 'Whether costs should be ordered in favour of the respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was afforded procedural fairness because it knew from the earlier Appeal Panel decision that the remitted hearing concerned the appropriate remedy, it attended the hearing, it was given time to confer and address the issue, and it did not raise the SEO refund argument or seek an adjournment. Any failure caused by directions being mislaid within the appellant's office was the appellant's fault, and even if the directions were not received, the circumstances did not establish unfairness. The new SEO argument should have been raised at the hearing and was too late to ventilate on appeal. As there was no denial of procedural fairness, the decision was not shown to be not fair...

Court Disposition

The appeal was dismissed and no costs order was made in favour of the respondent.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']