Karaday Pty Ltd v RSB Australia Pty Ltd

Karaday Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal a decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing its claim against RSB Australia Pty Ltd. The claim was filed in the consumer/trader division, but Karaday, a company, argued it should have been filed in the trader/trader division. Karaday had deposited money for the importation of a Ferrari, which did not eventuate, and sought the return of the deposit. The tribunal found that Karaday's claim was correctly filed in the consumer/trader division and dismissed it. Karaday sought leave to appeal on two grounds: the definition of “trader” and procedural fairness in the tribunal's handling of the case. The tribunal had defined a trader as an individual or a body corporate that carries on business, excluding a company if it is a professional or partnership firm. Karaday argued it was a trader and should have filed in the trader/trader division. It also claimed procedural unfairness due to the tribunal's refusal to adjourn the hearing and its failure to contact Karaday's agent for a proposed remote conference.

The court considered whether the tribunal's definition of “trader” was correct and whether Karaday should have filed in the trader/trader division. The court also examined whether the tribunal's refusal to adjourn and its failure to contact Karaday's agent for a remote conference was procedurally unfair. The court found that the tribunal's definition of “trader” was correct and that Karaday was not a trader for the purposes of the claim. However, the court found that the tribunal had failed to consider Karaday's application for a remote conference and that this was procedurally unfair. The court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the tribunal's decision, and dismissed the claim.