Rodgers v Ladehai Pty Ltd trading as North Star Holiday Resort & Anor [2023] NSWCATAP 175

Rodgers v Ladehai Pty Ltd trading as North Star Holiday Resort & Anor [2023] NSWCATAP 175

The Appeal Panel refused the renewed adjournment application because no new basis was advanced, the appellant had exhausted available pro bono avenues without good prospects of obtaining representation, and the guiding principle required a just, quick and cheap resolution. The Guardian ad Litem then confirmed that, without instructions, submissions, evidence or legal representation, she could not prosecute the appeal. Given the appellant's failure to prosecute and the prejudice established by the respondent if the matter were adjourned rather than dismissed, the Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal under s 55(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 for want of prosecution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Possession of a Residential Community Site and Unpaid Fees. / Appeal Panel Hearing; Written Reasons Provided After Request Under S 62; Appeal Dismissed for Want of Prosecution.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'want of Prosecution' 'adjournment Application' 'guardian Ad Litem' 'stay Application' 'residential Community Site Agreement' 'possession Orders' 'site Fees']
['administrative Law' 'tribunal Procedure' 'residential Communities' 'civil Procedure' 'probate and Administration'] ['internal Appeal' 'want of Prosecution' 'adjournment Application' 'guardian Ad Litem' 'stay Application' 'residential Community Site Agreement' 'possession Orders' 'site Fees']

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 Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Possession of a Residential Community Site and Unpaid Fees. / Appeal Panel Hearing; Written Reasons Provided After Request Under S 62; Appeal Dismissed for Want of Prosecution.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal should be adjourned to allow further attempts to obtain legal representation.' 'Whether the appellant, through the Guardian ad Litem, was able to prosecute the appeal or put submissions or evidence on the merits.' 'Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under s 55(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the matter were adjourned and not dismissed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel refused the renewed adjournment application because no new basis was advanced, the appellant had exhausted available pro bono avenues without good prospects of obtaining representation, and the guiding principle required a just, quick and cheap resolution. The Guardian ad Litem then confirmed that, without instructions, submissions, evidence or legal representation, she could not prosecute the appeal. Given the appellant's failure to prosecute and the prejudice established by the respondent if the matter were adjourned rather than dismissed, the Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal under s 55(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed pursuant to s 55(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 for want of prosecution.']