Hamers v South Canberra Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 606 747 602 Trading as Southside Village

The case before the Tribunal involved an appeal by Hamers against South Canberra Holdings Pty Ltd, trading as Southside Village. The dispute arose out of an alleged breach of natural justice and discrimination on the grounds of disability. Hamers sought a hearing de novo and permission to file fresh evidence, arguing that the alleged breach of natural justice could only be remedied by a new hearing. The Tribunal was tasked with deciding whether to grant the application for a de novo hearing and the admissibility of fresh evidence.

The primary legal issues centred on the remedy for an alleged breach of natural justice and the admissibility of fresh evidence in the context of an appeal. Hamers contended that the only remedy for the alleged breach was a de novo hearing. The Tribunal had to consider whether such a hearing was necessary or if the appeal could proceed by way of a review, and if so, what fresh evidence could be admitted. The court examined the principles of natural justice, the discretion of the Tribunal in reviewing evidence, and the standards for admitting fresh evidence in appeals.

The Tribunal found that the application for a de novo hearing was dismissed. It concluded that the appeal could proceed as a review of the evidence before the original tribunal, with limited fresh evidence being admissible. The Tribunal allowed the appellant to file additional material, including records from the Australian Federal Police and witness statements, but restricted the scope of the fresh evidence to certain specified items. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of compliance with its orders, warning that failure to adhere to the specified timelines and conditions could result in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal also set out the procedural requirements for further requests for adjournments by the appellant.

The Tribunal issued orders that the appeal would proceed by way of a review, with the hearing listed for 29 September 2021. The appellant was granted leave to file specific fresh evidence by 20 August 2021, and the respondent had to respond to the material by 3 September 2021. The Tribunal noted that any failure to comply with these orders could result in the dismissal of the appeal.