Application of Daniel Patrick Robinson
[2006] NSWSC 513
•05/29/2006
CITATION: Application of Daniel Patrick Robinson [2006] NSWSC 513 HEARING DATE(S): 29 May 2006 JURISDICTION: Common Law JUDGMENT OF: Michael Grove J at 1 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 05/29/2006 DECISION: ORDERS MADE CATCHWORDS: COURTS AND TRIBUNALS - CONSUMER TRADER AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL - EX PARTE APPLICATION - POSSIBLE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION AGAINST NON PARTY - STAY TO ENABLE APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION AND PROCEEDINGS TO BE INSTITUTED PARTIES: Application of Daniel Patrick Robinson FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30074/06 COUNSEL: Applicant in person SOLICITORS: N/A
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISIONMICHAEL GROVE J
Monday 29 May 2006
JUDGMENT30074/06 - APPLICATION OF DANIEL PATRICK ROBINSON
1 HIS HONOUR: There is before the court an ex parte application by Daniel Patrick Robinson. By leave the court has been addressed by his brother, David Robinson. There is at present no file pertinent to the matter and the Robinson brothers have been sent to me as Duty Judge by the Registrar having been advised that a question of stay of judgment is involved. It will be necessary for originating process to be filed.
2 I should record that I have some personal recollection of a matter coming before me at some time in the distant past involving an entity known along the lines of a title such as Central Coast Air Conditioning and I have some recollection that one of the brothers Robinson may have appeared before me on that occasion. I am unable to locate any record at present in relation to what occurred on that occasion and this may be because an ex parte application was made without file and was simply refused.
3 Be that as it may, the material that has presently been handed up is such that I have concluded I should record the following matters: Several documents have been handed to me. The earliest in date would appear to be 12 April 2005 in which a notice of conciliation and hearing by the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal is addressed to Daniel Patrick Robinson. However, that document records that a hearing is scheduled for 4 May 2005 in which the applicant is Maree Hazell and the respondent is Central Coast Air Conditioning Pty Limited formerly t/as Central Coast Air Conditioning.
4 The next document in time is a copy document said to be about an application concerning Maree Hazell and Daniel Patrick Robinson which has a file number identical to the notice that I have described. It bears date 11 July 2005 and states that on 4 July 2005 the tribunal made an order that Daniel Patrick Robinson is to pay Maree Hazell the sum of $3,645. That copy document is attached to a letter addressed to Mr D Robinson dated 3 March 2006. This letter, which enclosed the copy order that I have mentioned, points out that Mr Robinson, in effect, has to satisfy the outstanding order of the tribunal before there will be any renewal of a licence which he apparently holds as a contractor for air-conditioning and other work. The licence is due for renewal on 6 June instant.
5 The other document which I have is dated 12 May 2006. As I shall point out its content is, to say the least, a little confusing. It has a file number which is different from the number appearing in the notice and the ruling that I have mentioned. This document would appear to be purported written reasons for refusal of an application for rehearing of matter 08065 which was, in fact, the number on the earlier documents. This letter states that on 9 May 2006 an application was considered but refused. The reasons start with the proposition that the application is misconceived because the tribunal has no power to entertain a second rehearing application.
6 It then sets out what appears to be some chronology. It is this chronology which gives rise to the confusion, to which I made earlier reference. It is said that on 11 June 2004 the tribunal determined a matter and an order was made against Central Coast Air Conditioning Pty Limited. It then states that the company director did not appear at the hearing, namely, David Robinson. I pause to observe that no reference is made to Daniel Robinson at this point. It is then said that on 24 June the respondent filed a rehearing application and a new number was allocated. The practice of reallocating numbers may be one of the reasons why it has been difficult to trace what has exactly been going on. By the respondent I assume that it is intended either to mean Central Coast Air Conditioning Pty Limited or the asserted director, David Robinson.
7 The document then goes on to point out that the application, presumably the application for rehearing, was filed in the name of Central Coast Air Conditioning "a business name, not a legal entity". It is then said that the rehearing application was granted on 15 July 2004. I should point out that the only information that I have about any firm name of Central Coast Air Conditioning is on the first mentioned document which states that that is a trading name of Central Coast Air Conditioning Pty Limited. However, the document goes on to say that on 6 December 2004 the matter was re-heard.
8 It then states that an order was made against Central Coast Air Conditioning Pty Ltd, first respondent, the company director David Robinson do (sic) not attend the hearing and Daniel Robinson, second respondent, the proprietor of the business name “Central Coast Air Conditioning and Electrical”. He (Daniel Robinson) did not attend hearing. It hardly needs to be pointed out that this stated business name is not the business name referred to in the application said to have been filed on 24 June.
9 Next it is stated that on 19 January 2005 the second respondent - I take this to be a reference to Daniel Robinson - filed a rehearing application and this was granted, it is said, on 15 February 2005. It is then said that on 4 July 2005 the tribunal heard the rehearing application and the second respondent did not attend. That statement of reasons has to be linked with the ruling attached to the letter of 3 or 31 March - it is difficult to decipher exactly what it is - which refers to an order being made that Daniel Patrick Robinson pay Maree Hazell the sum which I have already stated.
10 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear challenges to determinations of the Tribunal is limited by section 65 of the constituting statute. However, the court does have jurisdiction where there are either erroneous rulings as to jurisdiction or, alternatively, a finding that there was no jurisdiction to make the order. It is trite to say that a tribunal can't have jurisdiction to make orders against persons who are not parties to litigation.
11 I am conscious, of course, of the extensive statutory powers of the tribunal to investigate matters which might be described in general terms as corporate veils. Nevertheless, as the material before me demonstrates Mr Daniel Robinson seems to have suddenly appeared in the litigation without any explanation as to how this was so. It is true that as long ago as 12 April 2005 the notice of conciliation and hearing was addressed to him but it was David Robinson who was said by the tribunal to be the director and the litigation was said to be between Ms Hazell and the corporation trading under the business name.
12 The jurisdiction of this court is sought to be invoked on the bases of assertion to be verified in due course that Daniel Patrick Robinson was a person who neither owned a company with a registration number 85096304282 nor a business name. The draft affidavit which has been handed to me does not specify the name of that company in its body but the implication is that that corporation is the one named in the original proceedings. The amount of money involved is relatively small and as can be gleaned from what I have had to say the dispute has stretched out for a long time.
13 Whilst I am of a view that it would be less than candid of me not to record that I am somewhat sceptical of the activities of the Robinson brothers and the corporate and business names which have been mentioned it would nevertheless be an injustice which this court should remedy if an order has been made against Daniel Robinson in proceedings to which he was not a party. It would compound that injustice if by reason of an invalid judgment he was refused renewal of his licence.
14 I propose to endorse the summons with some conditional orders but I have formed the opinion that in the circumstances of this case I should record my reasons for so doing. I propose to mark for identification the following documents and require that they be produced at any hearing. Accordingly, the notice of 12 April 2005 will be marked for identification 1. The documentation of 31 March 2006 marked for identification 2. The documentation dated 12 May 2006 marked for identification 3.
15 Upon condition of the filing of the summons in the form initialled by me today I make the following orders:
(1) The order of the CTTT made on 4 July 2005 against David Patrick Robinson is stayed until further order.
(2) Service of a copy of the summons and any affidavit to be relied upon by the plaintiff is to be served on the defendant within 28 days of filing.
(4) Liberty to any interested party to apply on 48 hours notice.(3) The CTTT is to be notified by the plaintiff of these orders and provided by him with copies of the summons and any affidavit in support; and
0
0
0