Deeb v Commissioner for Fair Trading

Case [2021] NSWCATAD 253


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Deeb v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATAD 253
Hearing dates: 24 August 2021
Date of orders: 30 August 2021
Decision date: 30 August 2021
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: L Pearson, Principal Member
Decision:

Pursuant to s 55(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the application for review is dismissed.

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE – summary dismissal – want of prosecution

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Home Building Act 1989

Cases Cited:

Bousgas v H.D. Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 122

Chalker v Murrays Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 282

Hoser v Hartcher [1999] NSWSC 527

K & J Vision Pty Ltd v Jows Construction Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 139

Murabito v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2020] NSWCATAP 63

Saisanavong v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 322

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ali Deeb (Applicant)
Commissioner for Fair Trading (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant self represented
Legal, Corporate Services, Department of Customer Services
File Number(s): 2021/120467

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. Mr Ali Deeb has applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision of the respondent to refuse his application for a contractor licence in the categories of Carpentry and Kitchen, Bathroom and Laundry under the Home Building Act 1989 (the Act).

  2. The application was refused on the grounds that:

  1. Mr Deeb is disqualified from holding an authority under s 33A(1)(a) of the Act due to his conviction on 21 November 2019 of “Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception T1”, and that offence was not considered a trivial matter and ignored under s 33A(2) of the Act;

  2. Mr Deeb is not considered to be a fit and proper person to hold a contractor licence under s 20(1)(a) and s 20(1A) of the Act because:

  1. NSW Fair Trading records indicate that 12 infringement notices have been issued against him;

  2. NSW Fair Trading records indicate four complaints lodged against him arising from activities related to contracting and carrying out residential building work; and

  3. Mr Deeb did not disclose in his application that he had had four complaints lodged or had been issued multiple penalty infringement notices in relation to his residential building activities; and

  1. Mr Deeb had not provided evidence of building construction to be considered against the standard of experience required for a general building authority under s 33C(1)(b)(i) of the Act.

  1. The refusal was affirmed on internal review on 29 March 2021.

  2. The respondent has applied to the Tribunal for an order dismissing the proceeding under s 55(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the CAT Act). The Tribunal is required to consider whether there has been a want of prosecution by the applicant, and if so whether in the exercise of discretion the proceeding should be dismissed: Saisanavong v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 322.

Procedural history in the Tribunal

  1. The applicant lodged his application for review on 30 April 2021. At the first directions hearing on…

Continue reading Deeb v Commissioner for Fair Trading

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Deeb v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATAD 253
Case
[2021] NSWCATAD 253
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Deeb v Commissioner for Fair Trading is a matter that came before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The dispute involved Mr Deeb, who filed a complaint against the Commissioner for Fair Trading regarding alleged unfair trading practices. The Commissioner sought to have the complaint summarily dismissed on the grounds of want of prosecution, arguing that Mr Deeb had failed to pursue his complaint with due diligence. The case was reviewed to determine whether the Tribunal had the authority to dismiss the complaint on these grounds.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had the jurisdiction to dismiss Mr Deeb's complaint for want of prosecution. This involved interpreting the provisions of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and determining whether such dismissals were permissible under the relevant legislation. The Tribunal considered whether the statutory framework allowed for summary dismissal on the grounds of inactivity or delay by a complainant.

The Tribunal concluded that it did indeed have the authority to dismiss a complaint for want of prosecution under section 55(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The Tribunal found that Mr Deeb had not acted with the requisite diligence in pursuing his complaint, and as such, the application for review was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of complainants pursuing their claims in a timely and diligent manner to ensure the efficient administration of justice.

Pursuant to section 55(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the application for review was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of procedural diligence in the pursuit of complaints and reinforces the principle that the Tribunal has the power to manage its caseload effectively by dismissing applications that are not pursued with due diligence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 55(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the application for review is dismissed.

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.