Lysle v Stewart [2019] NSWCATAP 296

Lysle v Stewart [2019] NSWCATAP 296

The Tribunal had sufficient material to accept the possibility of an oral contract and was correct not to finally determine contract formation or scope at the preliminary jurisdiction hearing. It had power under Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 to transfer the matters to the Local Court even though it lacked jurisdiction to determine them. The appellant demonstrated no error of law, no significant possibility of a better outcome, no substantial miscarriage of justice, and no issue of principle or public importance warranting leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Concerning Home Building Proceedings and Transfer for Jurisdiction / Appeal Panel Decision on Errors of Law and Leave to Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'transfer to Local Court' 'want of Jurisdiction' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']
['civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure' 'home Building' 'jurisdiction'] ['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'transfer to Local Court' 'want of Jurisdiction' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']

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 Concerning Home Building Proceedings and Transfer for Jurisdiction / Appeal Panel Decision on Errors of Law and Leave to Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in law by transferring the proceedings back to the Local Court rather than dismissing them for want of jurisdiction.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis that the decision was not fair and equitable or was against the weight of evidence.' 'Whether the appellant suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had sufficient material to accept the possibility of an oral contract and was correct not to finally determine contract formation or scope at the preliminary jurisdiction hearing. It had power under Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 to transfer the matters to the Local Court even though it lacked jurisdiction to determine them. The appellant demonstrated no error of law, no significant possibility of a better outcome, no substantial miscarriage of justice, and no issue of principle or public importance warranting leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused' 'The appeal is dismissed']