NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest Issue 12 of 2021 |
The NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest provides monthly keyword summaries of decisions of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) Internal Appeal Panel.
This issue features summaries of the following Appeal Panel decisions handed down in December 2021:
Zinck v NJS Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as High End Performance and Automotive [2021] NSWCATAP 401: The Appeal Panel found the Tribunal erred on two grounds; failing to exercise jurisdiction by not making a factual finding (also a denial of procedural fairness) and denying further evidence to be adduced. The hearing was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal. Commissioner for Fair Trading v Radovski [2021] NSWCATAP 409: The Appeal Panel upheld the decision of the Tribunal to refuse oral evidence to be adduced at the hearing. It also held that Commissioner had not justified the decision to refuse access to material requested under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW). Secretary, Department of Education v Early Childhood Education Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 397: The Appeal Panel held an error of law was made by the Tribunal but only one of the five errors of law materially affected the decision. The hearing was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal. Bruce v Knight (No 4) [2021] NSWCATAP 412: The Appeal Panel awarded costs on an indemnity basis for proceedings which were unmeritorious and had no chance of success.
Each case title is hyperlinked to the full decision available on NSW Caselaw. |
|
|
Zinck v NJS Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as High End Performance and Automotive [2021] NSWCATAP 401 Consumer and Commercial Division - Motor Vehicles G Blake AM SC, Senior Member; J McAteer, Senior Member
In sum: An appeal was brought by Mr Zinck concerning the Tribunal’s refusal to make a factual finding. The Tribunal did not permit further evidence to be adduced at the hearing, which would have assisted in the fact finding exercise. Procedural fairness was denied when the Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction, this was also a denial of procedural fairness. This also amounted to an error of law.
Facts: The Tribunal dismissed the proceedings on first instance, finding there was no breach of s 60 of Australian Consumer Law (NSW). There were factual disputes concerning the repairs on Mr Zinck’s truck. Several repairs were made by NJS Enterprises Pty Ltd between May 2020 and January 2021 to the sum of approximately $8,444. The truck continued to have significant issues and ultimately became useable. Mr Zinck sought services from an additional mechanic for the sum of approximately $1,200. Following these repairs, Mr Zinck’s truck became fully operational. The Tribunal denied Mr Zinck’s application to adduce additional evidence in aid of the application as it fell outside the filing period. The decision was appealed on five separate grounds.
Held (allowing the appeal):
(i) Ground 1: The Tribunal erred in failing to allow Zinck to adduce further evidence: The Appeal Panel held there had been a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness in refusing to admit Mr Zinck’s evidence. It held that “no explanation was given” for the failure to consider the additional evidence except that it was outside the filing time. Section 38(6)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (“NCAT Act”) outlines that the Tribunal must ensure “all relevant material is disclosed” to make determinations on the relevant facts in issue. Consequently, the refusal amounted to both a breach of s 38(6)(a) of NCAT Act and was an error of law. The Appeal Panel commented that it was “unsurprising” for self-represented litigants to seek to adduce further evidence and should be “accommodated where it can be done without prejudice to the other party” [37].
(ii) Ground 2: Tribunal erred in constructively failing to exercise jurisdiction by not making a finding of material question or fact. The Appeal Panel held, by not making a factual finding, the Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction. This amounted to an error of law. Consideration was given to Vella v LB Dellit Pty Ltd t/as Dellit Design and Construct [2021] NSWCATAP 367 (Vella), which stated that “a failure to deal with evidence may … be characterised as a failure to have regard to a relevant consideration or a failure to have regard to critical evidence” [35]. In light of Vella and s 38(6)(a) of NCAT Act, the Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal has an obligation to consider relevant evidence where it can make a material difference.
(iii) The Appeal Panel found grounds 1 and 2 to be interrelated and established. Consequently, it was deemed unnecessary to determine the remaining grounds. The decision to dismiss the application was set aside and the claim was remitted to the Consumer and Commercial Law Division for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal. |
Commissioner for Fair Trading v Radovski [2021] NSWCATAP 409 Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division L Pearson, Principal Member; A Boxall, Senior Member
In sum: The Commissioner for Fair Trading (the Commissioner) brought an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal, where it was found the Commissioner failed to justify the decision not to release an examination paper following a request under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act). Central to this appeal, was the decision of the Tribunal to deny the application of the Commissioner to adduce oral evidence at the hearing. The Commissioner appealed on five grounds, aiming to establish the Tribunal erred on a question of law. None of the grounds were successfully established.
Facts: Mr Radovski attempted an accredited building certifier’s exam which he ultimately failed. He submitted a GIPA request to understand the examiner’s findings. This request was refused and was upheld by an internal review. On first instance, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner had not justified the decision to refuse access to the information (per s 105(1) GIPA Act) and set aside the decision. The Commissioner brought an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal.
Held (dismissing the appeal):
(i) The Commissioner argued that the Tribunal erred in its approach to evidence by not giving “proper weight to the findings of the original decision” or the internal reviewer [39]. Ultimately the ground failed due to an absence of evidence, which neither of the original decision makers had the “relevant knowledge” [46]. The evidence the Tribunal sought was detailed of the “extent of time, labour, costs and resources that the Board would be compelled to incur if the examination was released” [55]. The Commissioner, in failing to adduce the relevant evidence, could not establish Ground 1.
(ii) The Commissioner challenged the Tribunal’s decision to deny oral evidence at the hearing, citing a denial of procedural fairness and legal error. This became the central issue on appeal. The Commissioner argued the oral evidence was required to “ensure that all relevant material” was disclosed to the Tribunal [57]. However, the Commissioner failed to comply with directions and acted on the assumption oral evidence would be permitted. The Tribunal afforded the opportunity to argue for an adjournment to allow time for witness statements to be provided. This offer was refused and the hearing proceeded on the existing material. The Appeal Panel held that procedural fairness was not denied.
Allowing the oral evidence would “prejudice” Mr Radovski, having no notice of the evidence to be led. Additionally, the decision to refuse oral evidence was one of “practice and procedure, and involved a discretionary decision” [58]. In challenging a discretionary procedural matter, a legal error must be established pertaining to the criteria set out in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; making an error of legal principle, a material error of fact, taking into account irrelevant matter, failing to consider relevant material or to arrive at an unjust or unreasonable legal decision. No such error could be established.
(iii) The Commissioner opposed the release of the examination paper, in fear of wider dissemination, and asked the Tribunal to consider the ramifications of such a disclosure. As such, the Commissioner was charged with an onus to establish a causal nexus between the dissemination of the paper to Mr Radovski and a public interest against disclosure (such as detriment, disadvantage or asserted prejudice). The Commissioner sought to rely on the expense and inconvenience of preparing another examination paper as the “detriment and disadvantage.” It was held by the Tribunal and the Appeal Panel, that there was an “absence of evidence” on “all the matters” where the Commissioner sought to establish public interest considerations against disclosure [72]. The ground failed.
(iv) The Commissioner contended that it was reasonable to infer that disseminating the examination paper to Mr Radovski would “likely lead to its wider dissemination,” concluding that persons wishing to sit the exam in future were provided with an opportunity to “scrutinise the questions” and prepare answers [77]. It was argued that dissemination of the examination met the threshold of public interest considerations against disclosure; to “reveal the purpose, conduct of results or the results of the examination” or “prejudice the effective exercise of the Commissioner and its functions” (as set out s 14(1)(f) and (h) GIPA Act). The Appeal Panel upheld the decision of the Tribunal, highlighting the “absence of evidence” on which an inference of prejudice could be drawn [80]. No public interest against disclosure was established.
(v) The Commissioner opposed the use of the ‘correct and preferable decision’ test instead of balancing the public interest considerations for and against disclosure. The Commissioner argued that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review. The Appeal Panel held that whilst this balancing exercise was not expressly engaged in, the Commissioner had failed to establish any “public interest considerations against disclosure which the general public interest in favour of disclosure could be balanced” [87] Therefore, there was no error in how the tribunal undertook its judicial review pursuant to s 63 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW). |
Secretary, Department of Education v Early Childhood Education Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 397 Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division S Westgrath, Deputy President; G Furness SC, Senior Member
In sum: An appeal was brought by the Secretary of the Department of Education (the Department) concerning two decisions of the Tribunal. The first was a decision to cancel the provider approval of Early Childhood Education Australia (Early Childhood). The second decision set aside the cancellation and imposed conditions upon the provider approval. The Department argued seven separate grounds of appeal, contending each amounted to an error of law. The Department was successful on one ground. Additionally, there were three instances where an error of law was made; however, the errors did not make a material difference to the ultimate decision.
Facts: Early Childhood operate family day care centres across Sydney. Between March 2013 and June 2019, there were 174 alleged instances of non-compliance with relevant requirements. Following the second decision, Early Childhood continued operating under the conditions imposed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that whilst the number of infringements were significant, a “large number of non-compliance matters were ‘very minor or technical’ [9].” The Department challenged the second decision.
Seven grounds to establish an error of law were proffered. The Appeal Panel referenced KEPCO Bylong Australia Pty Ltd v Bylong Valley Protection Alliance Inc [2021] NSWCA 216 per Basten and Payne JJA at [8], where:
“In order to succeed on the appeal grounds in relation to an error of law, it is necessary for the appellant to establish that (i) there were errors of law in the consideration given by the Tribunal to the issues under appeal, (ii) the errors were material and (iii) the errors materially affected the decision. That is, absent such errors, there was a realistic possibility that the decision might have been different.”
Held (the appeal was allowed):
(i) The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal fell into error by failing to give adequate consideration to evidence which ultimately had a material effect on the decision, even after the Tribunal’s attention had been drawn to this fact [81]. It held that the Tribunal failed to engage with evidence supporting systemic failures across multiple centres and educators which was the crux of the Department’s case and an error of law. Ground 1(d) and (e) was established.
(ii) The Department challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the series of breaches “did not create a direct threat to the safety of children.” It also argued the incorrect test was applied by the Tribunal, stating the Tribunal “mistook unacceptable risk for imminent risk or conflated the two terms in its reasons [69].” The Appeal Panel held that whilst the Tribunal referred to “imminent risk” in its reasoning, the statutory test for “unacceptable risk” was correctly used to make the relevant finding. Consequently, it did not materially alter the outcome. The Appeal Panel also stated that proper consideration to the material and adequate reasons substantiated Tribunal’s finding that children were not exposed to “unacceptable risk” [68]. Ground 1(a) was rejected.
(iii) The Appeal Panel conceded that the Tribunal did not give proper consideration to the evidence concerning: record keeping, the seriousness of the breaches and the distinction between educators and assistant educators. The Appeal Panel commented that “[n]o reasons were given by the Tribunal for failing to engage with these issues [77].” However, none of the specific failures were considered material to the ultimate decision. Ground 1(b) and (c) was not established.
(iv) The Appeal Panel agreed with the Department that the Tribunal erred in its statutory interpretation of s 31 of the Children (Education & Care Services) National Law (NSW). However, it did not “materially impact on the Tribunal’s reasoning” as a view had already been formed that the series of breaches should not amount to the cancellation of provider approval [98].
(v) The Appeal Panel held that evidence concerning the rectification of breaches by Early Childhood was “far from clear or consistent.” Whilst there is a degree of tolerance for “looseness,” the evidence could not permit a finding that “all” matters had been rectified. This was held to be an error of fact, but could not be “elevated to one of law as it is not the case that there was no evidence to support it [86].”
(vi) The decision of the Tribunal was set aside, the proceedings were remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal and the decision to cancel Early Childhood’s provider approval was stayed. |
Bruce v Knight (No. 4) [2021] NSWCATAP 412 Consumer and Commercial Division - Strata and Community Schemes R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member; A Boxall, Senior Member
In sum: The Appeal Panel awarded costs on an indemnity basis following a series of unmeritorious proceedings which had no chance of success. It was found the conduct of the respondents (across all four proceedings) caused unnecessary costs to be incurred and lost time to both the parties and the Tribunal.
Facts: In Bruce v Knight (No 3) [2021] NSWCATAP 343, the respondents (the Knights) sought a review under s 63 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act), proposing that the slip rule should be engaged as costs had been awarded by a “clerical error.” Following the dismissal of the s 63 application, the parties were entitled to seek costs with submissions. The decision was to be made on the papers. Mr Bruce sought costs on an ordinary or indemnity basis where costs had been “wasted in this futile, unmeritorious and misconceived application” [32]. The Knights sought a hearing and challenged the issue of costs.
Held: (allowing the appeal):
(i) The application for a hearing was dismissed and the decision was made on the papers, the Knights were to pay the costs of the s 63 application on an indemnity basis.
(ii) The Appeal Panel held that the Knights application was “misconceived” and the decision to award costs was “a decision…not a clerical mistake, an accidental slip or omission or an obvious error in the text” [36]. The Appeal Panel held that Mr Bruce was “entirely correct” and costs should be awarded [34].
(iii) Significant discussion concerned the award of costs on an indemnity basis. The Appeal Panel considered Fisk v Gold [2021] NSWSC 1465 (Fisk), where Ward CJ in Eq stated “the discretion to award indemnity costs must be exercised judicially…and with caution.” It was noted in Fisk, that there was “no fixed rule or rationale as to when an indemnity order might be made except that it requires a sufficient or unusual feature…such an order may be appropriate where a party wantonly or recklessly causes the other party to incur costs.” It was also noted that the liable party is “often guilty of some ‘relevant delinquency’” [35].
(iv) The Appeal Panel held that an award of indemnity costs was considered “appropriate” for the reasons advanced; namely [at 36]; that there was no chance of success; the undue prolongation of proceedings by groundless contentions; and particular evidence of misconduct which causes loss of time to the parties and to the Court. |
|
|
Maqableh v Kaklamanis [2021] NSWCATAP 385 Consumer and Commercial Division - Commercial Decision of: S Westgrath, Deputy President; I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEAL – whether Tribunal at first instance erred by failing to find that the Appellant was entitled to rely upon the Covid-19 Regulations as an “impacted lessee” pursuant to the Regulations or independently of the definition of “impacted lessee” in the Regulations in reliance upon estoppel- no error in either respect asserted by the Appellant established- consideration of the meaning and effect of the term “qualifies for” in the definition of “impacted lessee” in the Regulations- held that an implied term of any agreement between the parties independently of the Regulations that Appellant provide source documents evidencing his continuing entitlement to rely upon the Regulations- held that Appellant repudiated any agreement by failing to do so, entitling the Respondent to terminate agreement. |
GWH Build Pty Ltd v The Owners Strata Plan 96788 [2021] NSWCATAP 388 Consumer and Commercial Division - Home Building Decision of: I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; P Durack SC, Senior Member Catchwords: COSTS-indemnity costs-refusal of offer for work order to be made -subsequently work order agreed to
APPEALS-- no error of law-no point of principle-no appealable error concerning Tribunal’s conclusion that appellant acted unreasonably prolonged resolution of the proceedings – point not raised before the Tribunal not permitted on appeal |
Balle v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAP 389 Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: I R Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; E Bishop, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Administrative review – application for firearms licence – whether in public interest |
Mahmood v Luu [2021] NSWCATAP 390 Consumer and Commercial Division - Tenancy Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Senior Member; G Curtin SC, Senior Member Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — particular administrative bodies — NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal – procedural fairness – Tribunal required to consider the case put – appellant required to provide the Appeal Panel with the necessary materials from the hearing before the Tribunal – appellant elected not to provide those materials – inability to consider appeal |
|
|
RBV Builders Pty Ltd v Chedra (No 2) [2021] NSWCATAP 393 Consumer and Commercial Division - Home Building Decision of: K Rosser, Principal Member; D Roberston, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – Costs – Appeal against order for costs – Where appellant sought to reduce liability for costs by 30% which evidence disclosed would have been more than $30,000 – Civil and Administrative Rules 2014 (NSW) rule 38, rule 38A – Held, even on an appeal against an order for costs it is not practical to characterise costs as an amount “claimed” or “in dispute” in the proceedings. |
Jeremiasse v Shaw [2021] NSWCATAP 394 Consumer and Commercial Division - Tenancy Decision of: The Hon D A Cowdroy AO QC, Principal Member; G K Burton SC, Senior Member Catchwords: RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – procedural fairness – adequacy of reasons – relevant and irrelevant considerations – error of law – against weight of evidence – error of fact |
|
Bechara v Kazzi (No 2) [2021] NSWCATAP 396 Consumer and Commercial Division - Tenancy Decision of: A Suthers, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEAL – appeal lodged out of time - from costs decision – no question of law or basis for a grant of leave |
|
|
|
DYH v Public Guardian (No 2) [2021] NSWCATAP 400 Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: I Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; Dr J Lucy, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Administrative review of accommodation and access decisions of Public Guardian – Whether decisions contrary to the weight of evidence – Whether Appeal Panel should admit new evidence PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for non-publication and non-disclosure orders – Where orders sought related to matters outside the scope of the proceedings |
Zinck v NJS Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as High End Performance and Automotive [2021] NSWCATAP 401 Consumer and Commercial Division - Motor Vehicles Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Senior Member; J McAteer, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS - Error of law – Whether the Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness by refusing to admit documents into evidence - Whether the Tribunal constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction by not making a finding on a material question of fact |
Bechara v Kazzi (No 3) [2021] NSWCATAP 402 Consumer and Commercial Division - Tenancy Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; D Charles, Senior Member Catchwords: LANDLORD and TENANT-refusal of application to extend time to issue warrant for possession-termination of residential tenancy agreement pursuant to s 92 (1) (a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)-landlord seriously threatened or abused. APPEALS-no error of law or fact established-leave to appeal refused |
|
Hoang v Doung [2021] NSWCATAP 404 Consumer and Commercial Division - Commercial Decision of: The Hon Cowdroy AO QC ADCJ, Principal Member; G K Burton SC, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES – Retail leases – security deposit and breaches – no issue of principle |
Shousha v Owners Strata Plan 2657 [2021] NSWCATAP 405 Consumer and Commercial Division - Strata and Community Schemes Decision of: S Westgrath, Deputy President; C Fougere, Principal Member Catchwords: APPEAL; extension of time for late lodgement - appellants prospects of success - appeal against dismissal of costs application where appellant had mixed success |
Gaskell v Nazha [2021] NSWCATAP 406 Consumer and Commercial Division - Home Building Decision of: K Rosser, Principal Member; G Ellis SC, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Insurance proceeds for claim against builder - Irrelevant consideration for costs against director - Error of law - Costs order varied |
The Owners-Strata Plan 36965 v Alexander [2021] NSWCATAP 407 Consumer and Commercial Division - Strata and Community Schemes Decision of: M Harrowell, Deputy President; A Bell SC, Senior Member Catchwords: LAND LAW – Strata Schemes Management Act – whether dog is an assistance animal – requirements for training – whether Federal matter arises- extension of time to lodge appeal - relevant principles |
|
Commissioner for Fair Trading v Radovski [2021] NSWCATAP 409 Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: L Pearson, Principal Member; A Boxall, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – access to information – failure to comply with directions for provision of evidence – whether Tribunal erred in not permitting oral evidence –whether Tribunal erred in making findings – whether findings illogical – whether Tribunal erred in failing to draw inference – whether Tribunal erred in carrying out merits review task |
Pace v Pratelli [2021] NSWCATAP 410 Consumer and Commercial Division - Tenancy Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Senior Member; M Gracie, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL — NCAT— Leave to appeal from decision of Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT - No question of law - No substantial miscarriage of justice - Leave to appeal refused |
Kumar v Secretary Department of Education [2021] NSWCARAP 411 Occupational Division Decision of: C Mulvey, Senior Member; R Royer, General Member Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – Education and Care Services National Law – early learning childcare centre – educator - prohibition notice – risk of harm to children |
Bruce v Knight (No. 4) [2021] NSWCATAP 412 Consumer and Commercial Division - Strata and Community Schemes Decision of: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member; A Boxall, Senior Member Catchwords: COSTS – special circumstances – whether costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis |
Ashlin v The Owners-Strata Plan No 50705 [2021] NSWCATAP 413 Consumer and Commercial Division - Strata and Community Schemes Decision of: The Hon Cowdroy AO QC ADCJ, Principal Member; G Sarginson, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS - Land law - Strata titles - Owners corporation - Duty to repair common property - Whether duty breached - Whether decision fair and equitable |
Cousins v Rennie [2021] NSWCATAP 414 Consumer and Commercial Division - Tenancy Decision of: The Hon F Marks, Principal Member; R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – failure to provide transcript of proceedings with reference to evidence in the proceedings under appeal and the reasons of the Member – difficulty in considering the appeal – new evidence allowed – held appellant landlord did not discharge onus of proof that respondent tenants had caused damage – leave to appeal refused – appeal dismissed. |
Bryson v The FPC (NSW) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 415 Consumer and Commercial Division - Tenancy Decision of: S Westgrath, Deputy President; J Currie, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL- whether leave to appeal should be granted-inadequate reasons-assessment of damages-whether allowance to be made for betterment-remittal of claim for variations. |
Bell v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2021] NSWCATAP 416 Consumer and Commercial Division - Social Housing Decision of: S Westgrath, Deputy President; D Ziegler, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NSW) – set aside application – termination application under s 91(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 – social housing tenancy – evidence as to undue hardship and disability – evidence as to tenant’s knowledge of the presence of drugs – vicarious liability – failure to take account of relevant considerations – whether to remit proceedings to the Consumer and Commercial Division or substitute decision of the Appeal Panel – whether to extend time for lodgement of set aside application. |
Burns v Hogg Constructions Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 417 Consumer and Commercial Division - Home Building Decision of: S Thode, Senior Member; D Robertson, Senior Member Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – Cost plus contract – repudiation by owner – measure of damages |
Pantalone v Jacobe [2021] NSWCATAP 418 Consumer and Commercial Division - Tenancy Decision of: The Hon F Marks, Principal Member; K Ransome, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – appellant contested validity of termination notice of residential tenancy agreement – held termination notice valid – appeal dismissed. |
|
The Owners – Strata Plan No 76929 v Baldwin [2021] NSWCATAP 420 Consumer and Commercial Division - Strata and Community Schemes Decision of: K Rosser, Principal Member; G Ellis SC, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Non-compliance with directions - Application withdrawn - Finding of no special circumstances – Exercise of discretion – No error of law |
|
DISCLAIMER: This publication has been prepared for information purposes only. The NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest should not be relied on as legal advice nor is it a substitute for reading the decisions in full. NCAT does not accept any liability to any person for the information (or the use of the information) which is provided in this publication. |
