Elsayed v Tassone [2022] NSWCATAP 69

Elsayed v Tassone [2022] NSWCATAP 69

The Tenants identified no question of law and therefore required leave to appeal. Leave was not warranted because the Tribunal decided the repayment claim on the evidence before it, the omitted or unavailable bills did not establish error, the later payment plans postdated the hearing and could not have formed part of the claim, and the proposed additional documents were not shown to be significant new evidence that was not reasonably available. Because the appeal lacked merit and the other extension factors did not favour the Tenants, the application to extend time was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in a Residential Tenancy Matter / Application to Extend Time for Filing the Notice of Appeal and Appeal Before the NCAT Appeal Panel
Outcome
Application to extend time refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeals' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'new Evidence on Appeal' 'residential Tenancy Electricity and Water Charges']
['civil Procedure' 'residential Tenancies' 'administrative Law'] ['appeals' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'new Evidence on Appeal' 'residential Tenancy Electricity and Water Charges']

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 in a Residential Tenancy Matter / Application to Extend Time for Filing the Notice of Appeal and Appeal Before the NCAT Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants raised any question of law permitting an appeal as of right under s 80 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted in relation to bills not considered, unavailable at the hearing, or missing from the evidence.' 'Whether the documents relied on by the appellants were significant new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the first instance hearing.' 'Whether time should be extended for filing the notice of appeal to 25 November 2021.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tenants identified no question of law and therefore required leave to appeal. Leave was not warranted because the Tribunal decided the repayment claim on the evidence before it, the omitted or unavailable bills did not establish error, the later payment plans postdated the hearing and could not have formed part of the claim, and the proposed additional documents were not shown to be significant new evidence that was not reasonably available. Because the appeal lacked merit and the other extension factors did not favour the Tenants, the application to extend time was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal to 25 November 2021 is refused.' 'Appeal otherwise dismissed.']