Micallef v Orr Investment Group [2022] NSWCATAP 320

Micallef v Orr Investment Group [2022] NSWCATAP 320

The Appeal Panel refused an extension of time because there was no adequate explanation for the delay, the grounds of appeal were not fairly arguable, and the respondent had acquired a right to retain the decision after the appeal period expired. No error of law was identified and the appellants did not establish a basis for leave to appeal; the matters raised sought another opportunity to reduce arrears rather than demonstrating appealable error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge Notice of Appeal and Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed; stay order discontinued.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'error of Law' 'termination of Site Agreement' 'possession of Residential Site']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'residential Communities'] ['internal Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'error of Law' 'termination of Site Agreement' 'possession of Residential Site']

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 Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge Notice of Appeal and Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to grant an extension of time for lodgement of the Notice of Appeal.' "Whether there was an error of law in the Tribunal's decision." 'Whether there was a basis for granting leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel refused an extension of time because there was no adequate explanation for the delay, the grounds of appeal were not fairly arguable, and the respondent had acquired a right to retain the decision after the appeal period expired. No error of law was identified and the appellants did not establish a basis for leave to appeal; the matters raised sought another opportunity to reduce arrears rather than demonstrating appealable error.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed; stay order discontinued.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time to lodge the Notice of Appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is otherwise dismissed.' 'Order 8 made on 19 August 2022, which suspended the operation of the order for possession, is discontinued.']