Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd v Kaye-Engel (No 7)

Case [2015] NSWSC 1554


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd v Kaye-Engel (No 7) [2015] NSWSC 1554
Hearing dates:On the papers
Date of orders: 21 October 2015
Decision date: 21 October 2015
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $39,639.59.
2. Pursuant to section 6(2) of Schedule 4 the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, order that the proceedings SH 11/13265 be remitted to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales to be dealt with in light of the reasons given in these proceedings in Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd v Kaye-Engel (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1241.
3. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, including all the costs of the defendant's cross-claim, as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – final orders – matter remitted to NCAT – defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Cases Cited: Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd v Kaye-Engel (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1241
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Aboriginal Housing Company Limited (Plaintiff)
Natalie Kaye-Engel (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
N Kabilafkas (Plaintiff)
Self-represented (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Ashurst (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):2011/90824

Judgment

  1. On 28 August 2015 the Court made a number of findings of fact in relation to this matter, together with some limited orders: Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd v Kaye-Engel (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1241 at [162].

  2. By order 3 of that decision, the Court directed the plaintiff to file and serve by 4 September 2015 any submissions it sought to make in relation to the final orders to be made by the Court relevant to its statement of claim, consistent with the judgment of 28 August 2015. The defendant was directed to file and serve any submissions in reply by 18 September 2015. It was noted that the question of further orders would be determined on the papers.

  3. Both parties have filed submissions. Notably, and in view of the jurisdictional question as to this Court’s power to make orders for possession in the circumstances of this matter, the plaintiff does not seek orders finally disposing of the litigation. Rather, it is submitted that that aspect of the matter be remitted to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales (NCAT) to be determined in conformity with the judgment of this Court.

  4. Although it is entitled to more, the plaintiff – with some generosity - does not seek to recover the whole of unpaid rental payments, but has limited its application in that regard to unpaid rent up to and including 16 February 2015.

  5. Consistent with the reasons set out in the judgment of 28 August 2015, the Court makes the following orders.

orders

  1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $39,639.59.

  2. Pursuant to section 6(2) of Schedule 4 the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, order that the proceedings SH 11/13265 be remitted to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales to be dealt with in light of the reasons given in these proceedings in Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd v Kaye-Engel (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1241.

  3. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, including all the costs of the defendant's cross-claim, as agreed or assessed.

Details
AGLC
Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd v Kaye-Engel (No 7) [2015] NSWSC 1554
Case
[2015] NSWSC 1554
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Aboriginal Housing Company Limited and Kaye-Engel, where the dispute centred on a property located in Sydney. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Aboriginal Housing Company Limited sought a declaration that Kaye-Engel had no right, title, or interest in the property, and an order for possession. The defendant, Kaye-Engel, contested the claims and sought to set aside the decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) which had ruled in favour of the plaintiff.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the NCAT had correctly exercised its jurisdiction, and if it had, whether the decision should be affirmed, set aside, or remitted for reconsideration. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate costs order, considering the outcomes of the appeal and the conduct of the parties.

The court found that the NCAT had jurisdiction to hear the matter, and that its decision was legally sound. However, there were procedural errors that warranted the case being remitted to the NCAT for reconsideration. The court emphasised that the errors did not affect the substantive outcome of the case but necessitated a re-examination to ensure procedural fairness. Regarding costs, the court ordered that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the appeal, considering the unsuccessful nature of the appeal and the defendant's conduct throughout the proceedings.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, the matter be remitted to the NCAT for reconsideration, and the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.