Abdallah v Paco Nominees Pty Ltd

In Abdallah v Paco Nominees Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Abdallah, appealed against the decision of the NCAT Appeal Panel which dismissed his internal appeal against a decision of the NCAT. The plaintiff, who had become self-represented after a failed adjournment application, sought to adduce fresh evidence before the Appeal Panel which was denied. The plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Appeal Panel failed to properly consider his self-represented status and the admissibility of fresh evidence, and that there was a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Appeal Panel gave sufficient consideration to the plaintiff’s self-represented status and whether there was a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction in not admitting fresh evidence. The court also considered whether the Appeal Panel applied the correct test for the admissibility of fresh evidence.

The court held that the Appeal Panel did not need to consider the plaintiff’s self-represented status as it was not a ground of appeal. The court also found that the Appeal Panel correctly applied the test for the admissibility of fresh evidence under cl 12 of Schedule 4 of the NCAT Act. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the Appeal Panel should have admitted fresh evidence as it was not “significant new evidence” that was not reasonably available at the time the proceedings under appeal were being dealt with. The court held that the evidence was reasonably available to the plaintiff at the relevant time and that the plaintiff’s real complaint was that his then lawyers did not deploy that evidence in support of his adjournment application. The court also held that the plaintiff could not challenge the Appeal Panel’s finding of fact that he had instructed his lawyers not to defend the proceedings if he was denied an adjournment.

The court dismissed the appeal and made no orders for costs.