Chand v Lifestyle Homes NSW* Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a dispute between Mr. Chand and Lifestyle Homes NSW Pty Ltd, heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The core of the matter was an objection to the competency of an appeal from a judgment of the District Court, which itself had heard an appeal from the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether an appeal lay to the Supreme Court from a judgment of the District Court given on an appeal from the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. This question turned on the interpretation of section 127 of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW) and section 67 of the *Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001* (NSW), particularly the meaning of the term "action" within section 127.

Basten JA determined that the appeal from the District Court was incompetent. His Honour reasoned that section 127 of the *District Court Act* limits appeals to the Supreme Court from District Court judgments to those arising from "actions" heard by the District Court. The proceedings before the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, and subsequently on appeal to the District Court, were not considered "actions" within the meaning of that section.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal from the District Court judgment. However, the appellants were granted leave to file written submissions in support of proceedings for judicial review of the District Court's decision. The appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent's notice of motion seeking dismissal of the appeal as incompetent, with other costs to be costs in the judicial review proceedings.