Pacific Sports Marine P/L v Mike Kristen & Anor [2003] NSWSC 388

Pacific Sports Marine P/L v Mike Kristen & Anor [2003] NSWSC 388

There was no denial of procedural fairness because the plaintiff received notice of the hearing and was expressly told to attend if not advised that an adjournment had been granted, but did not ensure its adjournment request reached the Tribunal, did not attend the hearing, and did not inform the Tribunal of the director's illness. The plaintiff also had not put all material on which it intended to rely before the Tribunal by a further rehearing application before seeking relief in the Supreme Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Application for Relief Under the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 From Orders of the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal / Final Judgment on Summons
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal orders affirmed; summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs; stay of execution lifted.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'adjournment' 'tribunal Appeal' 'rehearing Application']
['administrative Law' 'consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'adjournment' 'tribunal Appeal' 'rehearing Application']

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

Appeal and Application for Relief Under the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 From Orders of the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal / Final Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal proceeded in its absence after a request for adjournment was not received before the hearing.' 'Whether the Tribunal orders dated 12 June 2002 and 30 July 2002 should be set aside or disturbed.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no denial of procedural fairness because the plaintiff received notice of the hearing and was expressly told to attend if not advised that an adjournment had been granted, but did not ensure its adjournment request reached the Tribunal, did not attend the hearing, and did not inform the Tribunal of the director's illness. The plaintiff also had not put all material on which it intended to rely before the Tribunal by a further rehearing application before seeking relief in the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal orders affirmed; summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs; stay of execution lifted.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The orders of the Tribunal dated 12 June 2002 and 30 July 2002 are affirmed.' 'The summons is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed." 'The stay of execution on the judgment granted on 5 September 2002 is lifted.']