Flatt v Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal

The case of Flatt v Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal [2021] NSWCATAD 118 involved a dispute between the applicant, Mr. Flatt, and the respondent, the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. The primary issue was whether the Tribunal's decision to dismiss Mr. Flatt's appeal against a penalty imposed by a Residential Tenancy Manager should be reviewed and, if so, whether it contained any errors warranting intervention.

The central legal issue before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) was whether the Tribunal's dismissal of Mr. Flatt's appeal was an exercise of discretion that should be reviewed under the new appellate regime. This required consideration of the Tribunal's interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions, specifically whether the Tribunal had correctly identified and applied the grounds on which it based its decision. Additionally, the court had to determine whether any error in the exercise of discretion was apparent on the face of the record, warranting a finding of unreasonableness or jurisdictional error.

The ADT held that the Tribunal's decision was an exercise of discretion and was not subject to review unless there was an error on the face of the record. The court found that Mr. Flatt had not demonstrated any error in the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal. It was held that the Tribunal had properly considered the relevant factors and exercised its discretion in accordance with the law. The ADT concluded that the Tribunal's decision was a valid exercise of its statutory powers and, therefore, was not subject to review. The application for review was dismissed.

The court ordered that the application for review be dismissed, with Mr. Flatt to bear the costs of the review proceedings.