Burrows v City West Housing Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 106

Burrows v City West Housing Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 106

The application to extend time was refused because although the delay was short and unopposed, there was no injustice from strict compliance with rules as the appeal lacked reasonable prospects; the Tribunal's application of the time limit for the s 61(2) claim, though erroneous, did not result in a miscarriage of discretion as the delay was even longer under the correct limit and no acceptable basis for extension; factual findings regarding the car space and notice for removal were properly made and no error or injustice was identified.

Parties
Appellant: Suzanne Burrows; Respondent: City West Housing Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, application to extend time refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Appeal, Compensation for Damage to Goods, Notice for Removal of Goods, Common Property Under Tenancy, Promissory Estoppel
Residential Tenancies Civil Procedure Extension of Time for Appeal Compensation for Damage to Goods Notice for Removal of Goods Common Property Under Tenancy Promissory Estoppel

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suzanne Burrows

Appellant

City West Housing Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the incorrect time limit to the compensation claim under s 61(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in factual findings regarding the status of the car space and adequacy of notice for removal of goods
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's orders regarding repairs were complied with

Ratio Decidendi

The application to extend time was refused because although the delay was short and unopposed, there was no injustice from strict compliance with rules as the appeal lacked reasonable prospects; the Tribunal's application of the time limit for the s 61(2) claim, though erroneous, did not result in a miscarriage of discretion as the delay was even longer under the correct limit and no acceptable basis for extension; factual findings regarding the car space and notice for removal were properly made and no error or injustice was identified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, application to extend time refused

Orders

  • The application of the appellant to extend time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal is refused.
  • The appeal is otherwise dismissed.