Wilson v Brisbane; Wilson v Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1598

Wilson v Brisbane; Wilson v Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1598

Leave to appeal, extension of time, and judicial review were refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any more than merely arguable error of law, no clear injustice, no procedural unfairness, and no inadequacy of reasons. The original Tribunal and Appeal Panel cost decisions involved permissible discretionary choices, and all procedural requirements were met.

Parties
Plaintiff: Stephen Wilson; First Defendant: Henry Carl Brisbane; Second Defendant: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal; First Defendant: Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd ATF Chan & Naylor Parramatta Trust
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Application for Leave to Appeal (common Law Administrative Law) / Decision on Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, and Extension of Time Applications
Outcome
Applications for extension of time, leave to appeal, and judicial review refused; proceedings dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of NCAT Decisions, Extension of Time for Appeals, Appeals on Questions of Law, Award of Costs, Procedural Fairness, Adequate Reasons
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review of NCAT Decisions Extension of Time for Appeals Appeals on Questions of Law Award of Costs Procedural Fairness Adequate Reasons

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 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Wilson

Plaintiff

Henry Carl Brisbane

First Defendant

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Second Defendant

Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd ATF Chan & Naylor Parramatta Trust

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Application for Leave to Appeal (common Law Administrative Law) / Decision on Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, and Extension of Time Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to appeal NCAT Appeal Panel and Senior Member decisions on costs
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether there was an error in the exercise of discretion regarding costs (special circumstances)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal, extension of time, and judicial review were refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any more than merely arguable error of law, no clear injustice, no procedural unfairness, and no inadequacy of reasons. The original Tribunal and Appeal Panel cost decisions involved permissible discretionary choices, and all procedural requirements were met.

Court Disposition

Applications for extension of time, leave to appeal, and judicial review refused; proceedings dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's applications for an extension of time to file an appeal in relation to both appeals are refused.
  • The plaintiff's applications for judicial review in relation to both decisions are dismissed.