Murabito v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2020] NSWCATAP 63

Murabito v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2020] NSWCATAP 63

Balancing the absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay and repeated non-compliance with Tribunal directions against lack of demonstrated prejudice to the respondent and uncertainty if blameworthiness lies with the appellant or his solicitor, justice does not demand dismissal of the proceedings. The application for summary dismissal is therefore refused.

Parties
Appellant: Steven Murabito; Respondent: Commissioner for Fair Trading
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Summary Dismissal Application
Outcome
Application for summary dismissal refused; appeal proceedings continue.
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Want of Prosecution, Tribunal Practice, Real Estate Licensing, Procedural Directions
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Summary Dismissal Want of Prosecution Tribunal Practice Real Estate Licensing Procedural Directions

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Murabito

Appellant

Commissioner for Fair Trading

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Summary Dismissal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the appeal proceedings be dismissed for want of prosecution under s 55(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013?

Ratio Decidendi

Balancing the absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay and repeated non-compliance with Tribunal directions against lack of demonstrated prejudice to the respondent and uncertainty if blameworthiness lies with the appellant or his solicitor, justice does not demand dismissal of the proceedings. The application for summary dismissal is therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for summary dismissal refused; appeal proceedings continue.

Orders

  • The application by the respondent for an order under s 55(1)d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 that the proceedings be dismissed for want of prosecution is refused.
  • The parties are to advise the Tribunal no later than 22 April 2020 available dates for a half day hearing in the weeks commencing 25 May 2020 and 1 June 2020.