Tran v Brown [2022] NSWCATAP 343

Tran v Brown [2022] NSWCATAP 343

The appeal failed because the appellant did not provide the sound recording or transcript needed to establish what occurred at the first instance telephone hearing, and the Tribunal's reasons showed that the matters he said were overlooked were in fact considered. Accordingly no procedural unfairness, practical injustice, error of law, substantial miscarriage of justice, issue of principle, or issue of general public importance was shown. The late finance issue also did not warrant leave because evidence and a PPSR search indicated there was no registered security interest against the vehicle.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Rejection of a Motor Vehicle, Refund of the Purchase Price, Consequential Damages and Collection of the Vehicle / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused and appeal dismissed; date in order 3 of the Tribunal in file MV22/19493 varied to 21 October 2022.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'practical Injustice' 'australian Consumer Law Remedies' 'telephone Hearing Connection Issues']
['civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeals' 'consumer Law' 'motor Vehicles'] ['leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'practical Injustice' 'australian Consumer Law Remedies' 'telephone Hearing Connection Issues']

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

Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Rejection of a Motor Vehicle, Refund of the Purchase Price, Consequential Damages and Collection of the Vehicle / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by an error of law because the appellant was denied procedural fairness during a telephone hearing due to connection issues." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the same alleged procedural unfairness grounds.' "Whether the appellant's late concern that the vehicle was subject to finance warranted leave or affected the fairness of the orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the appellant did not provide the sound recording or transcript needed to establish what occurred at the first instance telephone hearing, and the Tribunal's reasons showed that the matters he said were overlooked were in fact considered. Accordingly no procedural unfairness, practical injustice, error of law, substantial miscarriage of justice, issue of principle, or issue of general public importance was shown. The late finance issue also did not warrant leave because evidence and a PPSR search indicated there was no registered security interest against the vehicle.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused and appeal dismissed; date in order 3 of the Tribunal in file MV22/19493 varied to 21 October 2022.

Orders

  • ['The date in order 3 of the Tribunal in file MV22/19493 is varied to 21 October 2022.' 'Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']