Legal Research
Cases
Corcoran v Far

Corcoran v Far

Case [2019] NSWSC 1284 25 September 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Corcoran v Far [2019] NSWSC 1284
Hearing dates: 20 November 2018
Decision date: 25 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
The summons for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: JUDICIAL REVIEW – decision of Appeal Panel of Civil and Administrative Tribunal – dispute between tenant and subtenant as to the use of a shower – subtenant seeking compensation after being wrongfully locked out premises – where claims rejected largely on factual findings – no question of law arising such as to warrant a grant of leave to appeal
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 36, 82, 83
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B(1)(a)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), ss 10, 85, 90, 187
Residential Tenancies Regulation 2010, cl 23
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 50.12(4), 50.23(4)
Cases Cited: Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164
Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2017] NSWCA 41
Davis v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2016] NSWCA 325; 18 BPR 36,459
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; (2003) 77 ALJR 1088
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Gan v Shop 3, 228-230 Hanvaylee Parade Kensington Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1322
Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390; [2010] HCA 32
Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice (No 2) (2010) 241 CLR 320; [2010] HCA 24
The Owners - Strata Plan No 73943 v Gazebo Penthouse Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1536; (2014) 17 BPR 33,621
Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd v Capitol Carpets Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 223
TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1988] FCA 119; (1988) 82 ALR 175
Texts Cited: A Anforth, P Christensen and S Bentwood, Residential Tenancies Law and Practice New South Wales (6th ed, 2014)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Aaron Corcoran (plaintiff)
Peter Far (defendant)
Representation: Plaintiff self-represented
Defendant self-represented

File Number(s): 2019/38799
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Jurisdiction:

Appeal panel

Citation:

[2018] NSWCATAP 13

Date of Decision:

8 January 2018

Before:

Appeal Panel (M Harrowell & R Titterton)

File Number(s):

AP 17/26430

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Aaron Corcoran shared a flat with Peter Far for nine and a half weeks. The tenancy was spectacularly unsuccessful, largely due to a dispute over the use of a shower. Mr Corcoran and Mr Far each brought proceedings against the other in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Mr Far applied for an order terminating Mr Corcoran’s tenancy but later resorted to changing the locks. Mr Corcoran then sought compensation on various grounds in the sum of $17,589 “or higher”. A protracted dispute followed. Mr Corcoran ultimately succeeded in recovering $615…

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 Corcoran v Far

Details

AGLC: Corcoran v Far [2019] NSWSC 1284
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1284
Decision Date: 25 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Corcoran v Far was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellant, Mr Corcoran, was a subtenant of a property managed by the respondent, Ms Far. The dispute arose when Mr Corcoran was locked out of the premises and subsequently sought compensation from Ms Far for the inconvenience and distress caused. The matter was initially heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which rejected Mr Corcoran's claims. Mr Corcoran sought leave to appeal the decision of the CAT to the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CAT's decision was flawed to the extent that it warranted a grant of leave to appeal. Specifically, the court had to determine if the CAT's factual findings were so unreasonable as to amount to a jurisdictional error, or if the decision was otherwise affected by a question of law that required judicial review. The court also needed to assess whether the CAT had properly considered all relevant evidence and applied the correct legal principles in reaching its decision.

The Supreme Court found that the CAT's decision was based on factual findings that were not clearly wrong. The court held that there was no evidence to suggest that the CAT had overlooked any relevant material or failed to apply the correct legal standards. Given that the appeal was largely based on factual findings, the court determined that no question of law arose that would warrant a grant of leave to appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr Corcoran's application for leave to appeal, affirming the CAT's decision.

The court's final order was that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs. This decision underscored the principle that appellate courts generally do not interfere with the factual findings of a tribunal unless those findings are clearly erroneous or based on a misapprehension of the evidence.

Orders