Keddis v Pelders - [2025] NSWCATEN 1

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Keddis v Pelders [2025] NSWCATEN 1
Hearing dates: 25 November 2024
Date of orders: 28 February 2025
Decision date: 28 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Enforcement
Before: ADCJ Hennessy, Deputy President
Decision:
(1) The Tribunal declines to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination under s 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
(2) Any application for costs is to be made within 7 days of the date of this decision.

Catchwords:
CONTEMPT – alleged failure to comply with summons to produce documents – whether failure capable of amounting to contempt – whether matter should be referred to the Supreme Court for determination

Legislation Cited:
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Commissioner for Fair Trading v Rixon (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 146
DVI v ZTT [2021] NSWCATEN 4
Keddis v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 20198 (Civil and Administrative Tribunal), 3 September 2024, unrep)
Markisic v Commonwealth (2007) 69 NSWLR 737
Mohareb v Palmer [2017] NSWCA 281
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v Dangerfield [2016] NSWCA 277
Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 1) (1991) 25 NSWLR 459

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Victor Keddis (Applicant)
Suzanne Pelders (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (self-represented)
Woodina Law (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00333119
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

Mr Keddis alleges that Ms Pelders is guilty of contempt of the Tribunal because she has failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with two summonses to produce documents issued under s 48 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act). The summonses relate to proceedings that were listed for hearing on 23 August 2024. Mr Keddis, who is one of five lot owners in a strata scheme, applied for the summonses to be issued to Ms Pelders who was then the director of Owners Corporate Management Services Pty Ltd (OCMS) the strata managing agent of the strata scheme. The Tribunal subsequently heard and determined those proceedings: Keddis v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 20198 (Civil and Administrative Tribunal), 3 September 2024, unrep)
The alleged contempt was not committed “in the face or hearing of the Tribunal”. In those circumstances the only procedure available is for the Tribunal to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination: NCAT Act, s 73 and Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 1) (1991) 25 NSWLR 459 at 462-463. I must first determine whether the alleged conduct is capable of amounting to contempt: Mohareb v Palmer [2017] NSWCA 281 per Basten JA, with whom Sackville AJA agreed, at [19] – [20]. If it is, I must determine whether to exercise the discretion in s 73(5) of the NCAT Act to refer the matter to the Supreme Court: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v Dangerfield [2016] NSWCA 277 at [52].
Mr Keddis has submitted that Ms Pelders and Bannermans Lawyers are in breach of various statutory and common law duties.…

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.

Continue reading Keddis v Pelders

Details

AGLC: Keddis v Pelders [2025] NSWCATEN 1
Case: [2025] NSWCATEN 1
Decision Date: 28 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Keddis v Pelders, the respondent, Ms Pelders, was alleged to have failed to comply with a summons issued by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to produce documents. The case was brought before the CAT by Mr Keddis, who claimed that Ms Pelders had not provided the requested documents and that this failure constituted contempt. The CAT was required to determine whether the respondent's failure to comply with the summons was capable of amounting to contempt and whether the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court for determination.

The central legal issue before the CAT was whether the respondent's failure to comply with the summons to produce documents was capable of amounting to contempt of the Tribunal. The CAT considered whether the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court for determination under section 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The CAT noted that the application for contempt was not an application for enforcement of the order for production of documents and that the application was not being brought under section 73(4) of the Act. Instead, the application was being brought under section 73(5) of the Act, which allows the CAT to refer matters to the Supreme Court for determination.

The CAT declined to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination under section 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The CAT found that the respondent's failure to comply with the summons to produce documents did not constitute contempt of the Tribunal. The CAT held that the matter was not appropriate for referral to the Supreme Court for determination and that the application for contempt should be dismissed. The CAT also noted that any application for costs was to be made within 7 days of the date of the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Tribunal declines to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination under s 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

(2) Any application for costs is to be made within 7 days of the date of this decision.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Keddis v Pelders [2025] NSWCATEN 1
Hearing dates:	25 November 2024
Date of orders:	28 February 2025
Decision date:	28 February 2025
Jurisdiction:	Enforcement
Before:	ADCJ Hennessy, Deputy President
Decision:	(1) The Tribunal declines to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination under s 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). (2) Any application for costs is to be made within 7 days of the date of this decision.
Catchwords:	CONTEMPT – alleged failure to comply with summons to produce documents – whether failure capable of amounting to contempt – whether matter should be referred to the Supreme Court for determination
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Commissioner for Fair Trading v Rixon (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 146 DVI v ZTT [2021] NSWCATEN 4 Keddis v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 20198 (Civil and Administrative Tribunal), 3 September 2024, unrep) Markisic v Commonwealth (2007) 69 NSWLR 737 Mohareb v Palmer [2017] NSWCA 281 Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v Dangerfield [2016] NSWCA 277 Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 1) (1991) 25 NSWLR 459
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Victor Keddis (Applicant) Suzanne Pelders (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (self-represented) Woodina Law (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/00333119
Publication restriction:	Nil