Doherty v Consumer Claims Tribunal - [1999] NSWSC 371

CITATION: Doherty v Consumer Claims Tribunal & Anor [1999] NSWSC 371

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Administrative Law

FILE NUMBER(S): 30052/98

HEARING DATE(S): 13 April 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 April 1999

PARTIES :

David Doherty
(Plaintiff)
Consumer Claims Tribunal
(First defendant)
Kevin Hancock
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Harrison

COUNSEL :
Mr R D Marshall
(Plaintiff)
Mrs M A Gilmour
(Second Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Mr David Reid of
Donovan Oates Hannaford, Port Macquarie
(Plaintiff)
Ms Fabiola Campora
Department of Fair Trading

CATCHWORDS: Denial of natural justice

ACTS CITED: Uncollected Goods Act 1995
Consumer Claims Tribunal Act 1987
Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1969
Judicial Review of Administrative Act 2nd ed

CASES CITED: Barnes v Oliver & Ors (1970) 16 FLR 367
Fletcher v Commissioner of Taxation (1988) FCR 442
Hutley v Meigan & Ors (1997) ASC 65-370
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Finton Pty Limited v The Registrar CCT & Ors (NSWSC Graham AJ, 16 December 1997, unreported)
Singer v Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Tribunal (1986) 5 NSWLR 663
Archcom Pty Limited v Consumer Claim Tribunal & Ors (NSWSC 29 September 1995, unreported)
Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323

DECISION: See para 48

30

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
ADMINSTRATIVE LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

FRIDAY, 23 APRIL 1999

30052/98 - DAVID DOHERTY v CONSUMER CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL & ANOR
JUDGMENT (Quash orders of Consumer Claims Tribunal;

Denial of natural justice)

1 MASTER: By amended summons filed 3 July 1998 the plaintiff seeks to appeal against the decision of Mr Gilson a Referee of the Consumer Claims Tribunal made on 22 April 1998. The plaintiff relied on his affidavits sworn 19 May 1998, 3 August 1998 and 12 October 1998 and affidavits of Joan Bernadette Talbot sworn 10 August 1998 and Amanda Jane Mulligan sworn 10 August 1998. The second defendant relied on his affidavit sworn 2 October 1998 and on the affidavit of Kerry Cowell sworn 2 October 1998.
2 The plaintiff was the respondent in proceedings in the Consumer Claims Tribunal. The second defendant was the claimant in the proceedings in the Consumer Claims Tribunal. The first defendant has filed a submitting appearance.
3 The issue to be determined is whether the appellant was denied natural justice in the proceedings before Referee Gilson in the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
4 The dispute before the Referee was whether the plaintiff, who was the proprietor of Wauchope Mini Storage, disposed of the goods that were stored in his storage sheds in contravention of the Uncollected Goods Act 1995, what were those goods and how much compensation should be awarded. The defendant was seeking compensation. The Referee in his reasons decided that he preferred the corroborated evidence of the defendant as to the contents of the storage shed. As the goods were over a certain value, the Referee held that the plaintiff was required to dispose of the goods in accordance with the Uncollected Goods Act 1995. After he had looked at the defendant’s list of documents and his estimates of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Doherty v Consumer Claims Tribunal and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] NSWSC 371
Decision Date: 23 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Doherty v Consumer Claims Tribunal concerned a dispute between a consumer and a tribunal established under the Australian Consumer Law. The consumer, Doherty, sought redress for alleged breaches of the law by a supplier, but the tribunal declined to hear the complaint on procedural grounds. The High Court of Australia was asked to review the tribunal's decision. The primary legal issue was whether the tribunal's failure to allow Doherty to make submissions before dismissing the complaint constituted a denial of natural justice. This issue turned on whether the tribunal was required to provide an opportunity for Doherty to respond to the procedural objections raised by the tribunal before deciding to dismiss the complaint.

The High Court held that the tribunal's failure to allow Doherty to make submissions before dismissing the complaint was indeed a denial of natural justice. The Court found that the tribunal should have given Doherty an opportunity to respond to the procedural objections before deciding to dismiss the complaint. The Court emphasised that the requirement for procedural fairness is a fundamental principle of administrative law, and that the tribunal had breached this principle by not providing Doherty with an opportunity to respond to the objections. The Court held that the tribunal's failure to do so was a serious error that rendered the dismissal of the complaint invalid.

As a result of the Court's decision, the tribunal's decision to dismiss Doherty's complaint was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the tribunal for further consideration. The Court's decision reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in administrative law and highlights the need for tribunals to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to make submissions before a decision is made. The final orders of the Court included the quashing of the tribunal's decision and the direction that the matter be remitted to the tribunal for further consideration in accordance with the Court's reasons.

Orders