Legal Research
Cases
Keevers v Sarraf Property Group Pty Ltd

Keevers v Sarraf Property Group Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 28 July 2022 74 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Keevers v Sarraf Property Group Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1017
Hearing dates: 8 March 2022
Date of orders: 28 July 2022
Decision date: 28 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal pursuant to s 83(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) is refused.
(2) The amended summons filed 26 October 2021 is dismissed.
(3) The stay orders made on 8 July 2022 in this Court are dissolved.
(4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – NCAT Appeal – Leave to appeal – Whether the Appeal Panel erred in joining parties – Whether there was an injustice going beyond what was reasonably arguable – Whether there is an issue of principle or a question of public importance – Appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ss 44, 80
Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) Part 10
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) ss 86, 87, 237
to s 86 Strata Schemes Management Act
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 6.19

Cases Cited:
Adam P Brown Male Fashions v Phillip Morris (1981) 148 CLR 170
Administration of Papua New Guinea v Daera Guba (1972) 130 CLR 353
Australian Railways Union v Victorian Railways (1971) 125 CLR 319
Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164
Browne v Dunne (1893) 6 R 67
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Fine [2014] NSWCA 327
Corcoran v Far [2020] NSWCA 140
Coulter v R [1988] HCA 3; 164 CLR 350
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Glenquarry Park Investments Pty Ltd v Hegyesi [2019] NSWSC 1120
House of Spring Gardens Ltd v Waite [1991] 1 QB 241
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
Huang v Attapallil & Ors [2017] NSWCA 181
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361
Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2012) 224 A Crim R 94; [2012] NSWCA 262
Macquane Developments Pty Ltd & Anor v Forrester & Anor [2005] NSWSC 674
Nana Ofori Atta II v Nana Abu Bonsra II [1958] AC 95 at 102
Nominal Defendant v Manning (2000) 50 NSWLR 139, [2000] NSWCA 80
Osborne v Smith (1960) 105 CLR 153
PPK Willoughby v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48
Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales v Forbidden Foods Pty Limited; Forbidden Foods Pty Limited v Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales [2020] NSWCATAP 182
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434; [2001] HCA 18
Tan v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 22014 (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1920

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Francis Keevers (Plaintiff)
Sarraf Property Group Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Konn Palonis (Second Defendant)
Owners of Strata Plan 1813 (Third Defendant)
Peta Bourke (Fourth Defendant)
Joanna Fardell (Fifth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
S.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Keevers v Sarraf Property Group Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWSC 1017
Decision Date: 28 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Keevers v Sarraf Property Group Pty Ltd is a case where the appellant, Keevers, sought to appeal a decision made by the Appeal Panel of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The dispute revolved around whether the Appeal Panel had erred in joining additional parties to the proceedings. The appellant argued that the decision to join the parties was not justified, as it caused an injustice that went beyond what was reasonably arguable. Keevers also contended that the decision raised issues of principle or questions of public importance, warranting an appeal to a higher court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Appeal Panel erred in joining additional parties, and whether the decision to join those parties resulted in an injustice that went beyond what was reasonably arguable. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the case presented an issue of principle or a question of public importance that warranted an appeal. The appellant argued that the decision to join additional parties was unjust and that the case raised important legal principles and questions of public importance.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the Appeal Panel did not err in joining the additional parties to the proceedings. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the decision to join the parties resulted in an injustice going beyond what was reasonably arguable. Furthermore, the court concluded that the case did not present an issue of principle or a question of public importance that warranted an appeal. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Appeal Panel was upheld.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal brought by Keevers against the decision of the Appeal Panel of the NCAT. The court found that the Appeal Panel did not err in joining additional parties and that the appellant had not demonstrated that the decision resulted in an injustice going beyond what was reasonably arguable. Additionally, the court held that the case did not present an issue of principle or a question of public importance that warranted an appeal. Consequently, the decision of the Appeal Panel was upheld, and no further appeal lies.

Orders