Liang v Wincrest Group Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 126

Liang v Wincrest Group Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 126

The Owners were not denied procedural fairness, as they were given opportunities, with assistance, to present their case and respond to issues, notwithstanding their language difficulties and lack of legal representation. Discretionary decisions to refuse leave to amend, admit late documents, adjourn, or permit oral evidence did not involve jurisdictional error or denial of procedural fairness. There was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the reasons given, both orally and in writing, were adequate. No error of law was demonstrated and leave to appeal should not be granted.

Parties
Appellants: Min Chen Liang and Xiao Yan Liang; Respondent: Wincrest Group Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Apprehended Bias, Adequacy of Reasons, Error of Law, Appeal Procedures
Administrative Law Home Building Procedural Fairness Apprehended Bias Adequacy of Reasons Error of Law Appeal Procedures

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Min Chen Liang and Xiao Yan Liang

Appellants

Wincrest Group Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether apprehended bias occurred
  3. 3 Whether adequate reasons were given

Ratio Decidendi

The Owners were not denied procedural fairness, as they were given opportunities, with assistance, to present their case and respond to issues, notwithstanding their language difficulties and lack of legal representation. Discretionary decisions to refuse leave to amend, admit late documents, adjourn, or permit oral evidence did not involve jurisdictional error or denial of procedural fairness. There was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the reasons given, both orally and in writing, were adequate. No error of law was demonstrated and leave to appeal should not be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Appeal dismissed