Kotynski v Peter Ernest James Rogers t/a Rogers Pools

The applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision of a Member of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, which dismissed the applicant's appeal from a decision of a Commissioner of the Tribunal. The applicant, Kotynski, had sought to appeal a decision that found Rogers, trading as Rogers Pools, was entitled to a payment of $12,000 from the applicant. The applicant argued that the Member erred in fact by not considering a particular document, which the applicant claimed would have changed the outcome of the case.

The primary issue for the court was whether the grounds of appeal were sufficient to warrant leave to appeal. The applicant argued that the Member had failed to consider a relevant document, which, if considered, would have led to a different outcome. The applicant contended that the Member had made an error in fact and that this warranted an appeal. The respondent argued that the grounds of appeal were not substantiated and that there was no error in fact that warranted an appeal.

The court held that the grounds of appeal were not substantiated and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Member had made an error in fact. The court held that the Member had considered all relevant evidence and had made a decision based on that evidence. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the outcome would have been different if the Member had considered the additional document. The court held that the grounds of appeal were insufficient to warrant leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Member had made an error in fact and that the grounds of appeal were not substantiated. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that there was any error in fact that warranted an appeal. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed and that the decision of the Member should stand.