Legal Research
Cases
Access Housing Pty Ltd v Rayfield

Access Housing Pty Ltd v Rayfield

Case [2018] NSWSC 599 7 May 2018

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Access Housing Pty Ltd v Rayfield [2018] NSWSC 599
Hearing dates: 28 April 2017
Date of orders: 07 May 2018
Decision date: 07 May 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal denied;

(2)   Summons dismissed;
(3)   The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendants’ costs of and incidental to the proceedings.
Catchwords: APPEAL – appeal from Appeal Panel of New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal – appeal under s 83 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – appeal by leave – appeal “on a question of law” – no basis for alleged errors giving rise to a question of law – leave refused
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 83
Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 11, 26(a), 28, 29, 37
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Australian Gas Light Co v Valuer General (NSW) (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126
Australian Postal Commission v Hayes (1989) 23 FCR 320; [1989] FCA 231
Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gaevert (1996) 186 CLR 389; [1996] HCA 36
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280; [1993] FCA 456
Haider v JP Morgan Holdings Aust Ltd (2007) 4 DDCR 634; [2007] NSWCA 158
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390; [2010] HCA 32
Krishna v DPP (NSW) (2007) 178 A Crim R 220; [2007] NSWCCA 318
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50
Ormwave Pty Ltd v Smith (2007) 5 DDCR 180; [2007] NSWCA 210
Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323; (1978) 1 ALD 383
T.A. Miller v Minister for Housing [1968] 1 WLR 992; [1968] 2 All ER 633;
Williams v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 278; [1986] HCA 88
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Access Housing Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Christopher Rayfield (First Defendant)
Becky Rayfield (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Moujalli (Plaintiff)
W Calokerinos (First and Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Adams & Partners Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Marsdens Law Group (First and Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/200790
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Jurisdiction:

Appeal Panel

Citation:

[2017] NSWCATAP 4

Date of Decision:

06 January 2017

Before:

Dr J Renwick SC, Senior MemberD Fairlie, Senior Member

File Number(s):

AP 16/26968

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By Summons, the Plaintiff, Access Housing Pty Ltd (“Access Housing”) seeks to appeal the decision of an Appeal Panel of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“NCAT”). The Appeal Panel dismissed an appeal to it from a decision of Senior Member Boyce (the “Senior Member”). According to the Amended Summons seeking leave to appeal, the Plaintiff seeks orders:

Granting leave to appeal from the whole of the decision below;

Allowing the appeal;

Setting aside the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Access Housing Pty Ltd v Rayfield

Details

AGLC: Access Housing Pty Ltd v Rayfield [2018] NSWSC 599
Case: [2018] NSWSC 599
Decision Date: 07 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Access Housing Pty Ltd v Rayfield, the appellant, Access Housing, challenged a decision made by the respondent, Rayfield, who was a member of the Appeal Panel of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Access Housing sought to appeal a ruling that dismissed their application for a declaration regarding the interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the appeal was validly brought under section 83 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, and specifically, whether the appeal was on a question of law.

The court found that the appeal did not constitute a question of law as required by the Act. Instead, the appeal was essentially a challenge to the merits of the decision made by the Appeal Panel. The court held that the appellant had not identified any alleged errors of law that would permit the appeal to proceed on the grounds of a question of law. The appellant's arguments were primarily directed at the correctness of the Panel's interpretation of the Act and the weight given to certain evidence, which were matters of fact and discretion rather than legal questions.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal on a question of law. The court determined that the appeal was not validly brought under the statutory provisions, and therefore, the appeal was not permitted to proceed. The findings of the Appeal Panel remained undisturbed, and the respondent's decision was upheld. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for appeals and the limited circumstances in which an appeal on a question of law can be pursued.

Orders