Herbert v Artese [2014] NSWSC 314

Herbert v Artese [2014] NSWSC 314

The Court declined to exercise any discretion under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 because the plaintiffs had vacated the premises so the stay of the writ of possession was otiose, the remaining rent, occupation fee and lease-term disputes were relatively small and fact-dependent, NCAT had jurisdiction and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 Concerning Orders of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal / Hearing of Summons After Interim Stay; Summons Dismissed
Outcome
Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'supervisory Jurisdiction' 'nsw Civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'writ of Possession' 'procedural Fairness' 'costs Discretion']
['administrative Law' 'costs' 'residential Tenancy'] ['judicial Review' 'supervisory Jurisdiction' 'nsw Civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'writ of Possession' 'procedural Fairness' 'costs Discretion']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 Concerning Orders of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal / Hearing of Summons After Interim Stay; Summons Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretion under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 to judicially review the CTTT orders made on 26 November 2013.' 'Whether the dispute about rent, occupation fee and the alleged promised lease term should instead be determined in NCAT.' 'What costs order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to exercise any discretion under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 because the plaintiffs had vacated the premises so the stay of the writ of possession was otiose, the remaining rent, occupation fee and lease-term disputes were relatively small and fact-dependent, NCAT had jurisdiction and appropriate procedural powers to determine them together, and any future NCAT decision appeared to be internally appellable. The summons was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed.' 'Each party should pay his, her and its own costs of the proceedings as a whole, except that the plaintiffs should pay the legal costs of the defendants for the hearing today, Thursday 6 February 2014.']