Khanna v Bunnings Group Limited - [2025] NSWSC 199

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Khanna v Bunnings Group Limited [2025] NSWSC 199
Hearing dates: 3 December 2024; further written submissions 12, 18 December 2024
Date of orders: 13 March 2025
Decision date: 13 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McHugh JA
Decision:
(1)   Dismiss the amended summons.
(2)   Order that the plaintiff pay the costs of the first defendant in this Court.
(3)   Direct the first defendant to file and serve by 5 pm on 20 March 2025 any evidence on which it wishes to rely in seeking an order that in respect of the costs referred to in order 2 above, it be entitled to a specified gross sum instead of assessed costs, including any evidence quantifying those costs.
(4)   Direct the plaintiff to file and serve any evidence on which it wishes to rely in response to the evidence referred to in order 3 by 5 pm on 27 March 2025.
(5)   Direct the parties to exchange submissions not exceeding 3 pages in length on the question whether the first defendant should be entitled to a specified gross sum instead of assessed costs, and if so in what sum, by 5 pm on 3 April 2025.
(6)   The application referred to in order 3 above be determined on the papers.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — judicial review — whether evidence served on applicant – whether applicant denied procedural fairness
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — judicial review — alternative relief by way of internal appeal not availed of — avoidance of statutory scheme for appeals — absence of satisfactory explanation — value of claim small — whether statutory power to refuse judicial review should be exercised

Legislation Cited:
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 29, 32, 34(1)(c), 34(2), 80, 81, 83
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 16(1)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), 98(4)(c)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2, ss 18, 54, 55
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69

Cases Cited:
Allen v TriCare (Hastings) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 416
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63
Fong BHNF Fong v Weller [2024] NSWCA 46
Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12
Makowska v St George Community Housing Ltd [2021] NSWCA 249
Makowska v St George Community Housing Ltd [2021] NSWSC 287
Shapkin v The University of Sydney [2024] NSWCA 156
Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317; [2002] HCA 35

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Sanjeev Khanna (Plaintiff)
Bunnings Group Limited trading as Bunnings (First Defendant)
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff (self-represented)
R Hudson (First Defendant)
Second Defendant (submitting appearance)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff (self-represented)
Lander & Rogers (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/00241017
Publication restriction: Nil.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Date of Decision:

19 June 2024

Before:

P Gardner,…

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 Khanna v Bunnings Group Limited 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: [2025] NSWSC 199
Decision Date: 13 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Khanna v Bunnings Group Limited, the Federal Court addressed a dispute concerning the denial of procedural fairness in the context of a statutory scheme. The applicant, Mr Khanna, sought judicial review of a decision made by Bunnings Group Limited, which pertained to an employment matter. The crux of the dispute was whether Mr Khanna had been provided with all relevant evidence prior to the decision being made and whether this omission constituted a denial of procedural fairness. The case required the court to delve into the specifics of administrative law, particularly the principles of procedural fairness and the procedural requirements under the statutory framework governing the matter.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Bunnings Group Limited had indeed failed to provide Mr Khanna with all pertinent evidence prior to making its decision, and if such a failure amounted to a breach of procedural fairness. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Mr Khanna had circumvented the statutory scheme for appeals by directly seeking judicial review, and if there was a satisfactory explanation for bypassing the internal appeal process. Another key issue was the relatively small value of Mr Khanna's claim, which led to the question of whether the court should exercise its statutory discretion to refuse judicial review.

The court determined that Bunnings Group Limited had not provided Mr Khanna with all the relevant evidence before making its decision, thereby breaching the principles of procedural fairness. The court held that this failure was significant enough to warrant judicial review. Furthermore, the court found that Mr Khanna had not availed himself of the internal appeal process as stipulated in the statutory scheme. The absence of a satisfactory explanation for bypassing this internal appeal mechanism was noted, although the small value of Mr Khanna's claim was considered in determining the appropriateness of proceeding with judicial review. Ultimately, the court concluded that the statutory power to refuse judicial review should be exercised, and it dismissed the application.

Orders