Freeman-Vagg v Oldstream Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 198

Freeman-Vagg v Oldstream Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 198

The Tribunal's findings dismissing the appellant's claims for compensation, damages, and claims of unconscionable or misleading conduct were supported by objective evidence, contemporaneous documents, and credibility findings. No legal error or procedural unfairness was established. The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in awarding and assessing costs, and correctly rejected claims for costs against the appellant's solicitor. All grounds of appeal failed; both appeals were dismissed with costs to the respondent on the ordinary basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
['retail Leases' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'costs Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'bias' 'jurisdiction']
['leases and Tenancies' 'costs'] ['retail Leases' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'costs Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'bias' 'jurisdiction']

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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the Tribunal err in assessing rent arrears and rejecting counterclaims for unconscionable and misleading conduct?' 'Did the Tribunal err in excluding or failing to consider relevant evidence and expert testimony?' 'Did the Tribunal err in its findings of procedural fairness, bias, and legal principles (Jones v Dunkel, credit findings, causation)?' 'Did the Tribunal err in awarding and assessing costs, including against non-parties and legal practitioners?']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's findings dismissing the appellant's claims for compensation, damages, and claims of unconscionable or misleading conduct were supported by objective evidence, contemporaneous documents, and credibility findings. No legal error or procedural unfairness was established. The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in awarding and assessing costs, and correctly rejected claims for costs against the appellant's solicitor. All grounds of appeal failed; both appeals were dismissed with costs to the respondent on the ordinary basis.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • ["In appeal 2021/00283619: Appeal dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis." "In appeal 2021/00353172: Appeal dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the ordinary basis."]