Hussain v Farhmand (Appeal)

[2015] ACAT 91

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

HUSSAIN v FARHMAND (Appeal) [2015] ACAT 91

AA 15/39 (XD 15/104)

Catchwords:              APPEAL - civil dispute – leave to appeal out of time – request for extension of time

Tribunal:                   Mr W.G Stefaniak AM – Appeal President

Date of Orders:  16 November 2015
Date of Reasons for Decision:         23 December 2015

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY               )
CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )

Appeal Reference No: AA 15/39 from XD 15/104

RE:MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN

Appellant

AND:SAYED ASHFAR FARHMAND

Respondent

DIRECTIONS

Tribunal:        Mr W.G. Stefaniak AM - Appeal President

Date:              16 November 2015

The Tribunal orders that:

1.   Application for leave to Appeal out of time dismissed.

........Signed................................

Mr W.G. Stefaniak AM

Appeal President

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an application for leave to appeal out of time filed by Mr Hussain (the appellant) who was the respondent in the original tribunal and Mr Farhmand, the successful applicant in the original tribunal (XD 15/104), now the respondent in this application.

2. After hearing from the parties on 10 August 2015, President Crebbin made the following orders:

   Orders in relation to Subpoenas

   1.       Noting that no documents are produced by the respondent in response to the subpoena addressed to him, the subpoena is discharged.

   2.       Noting that B.N Bilkis has written to the tribunal as the Public Officer of the company, M.M International (Australia) Pty Ltd, saying that “the property is not belongs to this company” and has not produced documents in response to the subpoena addressed to the company, the subpoena is discharged .

   3.       The applicant produced the following in response to the subpoena addressed to him:

   (i)      a photocopy of a Visa Application Summary in relation to him and of the front of his driver’s licence, taxi authorisation and Permanent Residence Evidence card;

   (ii)     the original of a video taken on his mobile phone on 12 June 2015.

   In relation to the documents described at (i), the Tribunal orders that the documents may be inspected, but not copied, by the respondent.

   In relation to the original video described at (ii), the Tribunal notes that the applicant says that he does not have the technology available to provide a copy of it. The video relates to service of subpoena by the applicant on the respondent. The question of service of the subpoena is not relevant to the determination of the issues in dispute in this case; The original video was therefore not viewed or considered by the Tribunal.

   Orders

   1.       Judgment for the applicant against the respondent in the total sum of $1,923.90 being the amount of the claim of $1,788.90 plus the filing fee for this application of $135.00.

   2.       The respondent must pay the total sum of $1,923.90 to the applicant by cheque or money order made payable to the applicant and sent to his home address.

   3.       The judgment sum is to be paid to the applicant by close of business on 25 August 2015.

3. The appellant and his company had not obeyed the subpoena…