Sam Robert Dragut t/as Sam's Bathrooms v CTTT & 2 Ors [2004] NSWSC 819

Sam Robert Dragut t/as Sam's Bathrooms v CTTT & 2 Ors [2004] NSWSC 819

There was no denial of procedural fairness because the CTTT, acting reasonably and fairly, was unaware that the plaintiff had not received the notice of hearing; the notice was sent to his residential address and was not returned, he had received the earlier notice stating that a further hearing date would be sent, and he could have made enquiries of the Tribunal but did not do so. The rehearing refusals did not establish procedural unfairness, and discretionary relief would also have been refused because of delay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Decision of Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal; Administrative Law Proceeding Alleging Denial of Procedural Fairness / Supreme Court of New South Wales Determination of Amended Summons Filed 22 October 2003
Outcome
The CTTT decision and orders were affirmed; the appeal and amended summons were dismissed; the plaintiff was ordered to pay the second and third defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Tribunal Decision' 'notice of Hearing' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'rehearing Applications' 'discretionary Relief Under Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (nsw)']
['administrative Law' 'consumer and Trader Law' 'procedural Fairness'] ['appeal From Tribunal Decision' 'notice of Hearing' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'rehearing Applications' 'discretionary Relief Under Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (nsw)']

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 From Decision of Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal; Administrative Law Proceeding Alleging Denial of Procedural Fairness / Supreme Court of New South Wales Determination of Amended Summons Filed 22 October 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness because he allegedly did not receive notice of the CTTT hearing on 28 November 2002.' "Whether the CTTT erred by proceeding to hear and determine the application in the plaintiff's absence." 'Whether the CTTT decision should be quashed and the matter remitted for rehearing.' 'Whether discretionary relief should be refused because of delay in commencing the Supreme Court proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no denial of procedural fairness because the CTTT, acting reasonably and fairly, was unaware that the plaintiff had not received the notice of hearing; the notice was sent to his residential address and was not returned, he had received the earlier notice stating that a further hearing date would be sent, and he could have made enquiries of the Tribunal but did not do so. The rehearing refusals did not establish procedural unfairness, and discretionary relief would also have been refused because of delay.

Court Disposition

The CTTT decision and orders were affirmed; the appeal and amended summons were dismissed; the plaintiff was ordered to pay the second and third defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['The decision and orders made by the CTTT on 28 November 2002 are affirmed.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' "The plaintiff's amended summons filed 22 October 2003 is dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the second and third defendants' costs as agreed or assessed."]