Le v Vo [2021] NSWCATAP 257

Le v Vo [2021] NSWCATAP 257

The Appeal Panel refused to extend time because, although the delay was short and no significant prejudice was asserted, the appellant failed to articulate any grounds of appeal, identified no error of law, did not address any basis for leave under cl 12(1) of Schedule 4, provided no evidence supporting her damages claim or rent miscalculation contention, and did not show that strict compliance with the rules would work an injustice. The proposed appeal had no merit and leave to file out of time was refused, with the appeal dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in a Retail Lease Dispute / Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to file the appeal out of time refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'retail Lease Rent Arrears' 'vacant Possession' 'grounds of Appeal' 'leave to Appeal']
['leases and Tenancies' 'retail Leases' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['internal Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'retail Lease Rent Arrears' 'vacant Possession' 'grounds of Appeal' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Internal Appeal in a Retail Lease Dispute / Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended under s 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 to permit the appeal to be filed five days out of time.' 'Whether the Notice of Appeal articulated any question of law or other ground of appeal.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis of a substantial miscarriage of justice under cl 12(1) of Schedule 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'Whether the appellant had a fairly arguable case or demonstrated that strict compliance with the rules would work an injustice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel refused to extend time because, although the delay was short and no significant prejudice was asserted, the appellant failed to articulate any grounds of appeal, identified no error of law, did not address any basis for leave under cl 12(1) of Schedule 4, provided no evidence supporting her damages claim or rent miscalculation contention, and did not show that strict compliance with the rules would work an injustice. The proposed appeal had no merit and leave to file out of time was refused, with the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to file the appeal out of time refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to file the appeal out of time refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']