Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Mendonca v Tonna [2017] NSWCATCD 47 Hearing dates: 4 April 2017 Decision date: 22 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: T Simon, Senior Member Decision: (1) The proceedings are stayed until further orders of the Tribunal.
(2) The respondent is to provide any documents and submissions in relation to transfer of the matter to the Supreme Court by 10 July 2017.
(3) The applicant is to provide any documents and submissions in relation to transfer of the matter to the Supreme Court by 25 July 2017.
(4) The issue of the transfer will be decided on the papers. In the event that the parties wish to be heard in person they must advise the Tribunal on or before 25 July 2017. If no further submissions are received, the Tribunal will proceed to make a decision on the papers.Catchwords: Concurrent proceedings, jurisdiction, transfer Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NCAT Act) Cases Cited: Gennacker Pty Ltd v Bennett [2016] NSWCATAP 10
Gunner v Lawrence; Lawrence v Gunner [2015] NSWCATCD 127
McEvoy v McEvoy [2012] NSWSC 1494
Steak Plains Olive Farm Pty Ltd v Australian Executor Trustees Limited [2015] NSWSC 289Category: Principal judgment Parties: Renuka Maria Mendonca (applicant)
Mark Julian Tonna (respondent)Representation: Counsel:L Fernandez for applicant
Solicitors:Tresscox Lawyers for the applicant
J Gatland for the respondent
Adams Lawyers for the respondent
File Number(s): RT 16/54987 Publication restriction: Nil
Reasons for Decision
-
These reasons relate to a determination as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this application. This is an application made by the applicant on 20 December 2016 seeking termination of a residential tenancy agreement and payment of outstanding rent. On 12 January 2017 the Tribunal adjourned the matter to a hearing to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction. More precisely, this decision on deals with whether the Tribunal ceases to have jurisdiction pursuant to Clause 5(7) of Schedule 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NCAT Act). The parties agreed that was the only matter before the Tribunal at this stage. The parties were given an opportunity to exchange submissions. Counsel for each party also appeared in person and each made some further brief submissions in relation to the matter. Both the written and oral submissions of the parties have been considered in determining the matter.
Background to the Matter
-
The application relates to a property at Galston and the applicant in the matter alleges that the parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement on 17 February 2014. The applicant is the registered proprietor of the property. The respondent denies the existence of the residential tenancy agreement and alleges that the signature on the agreement is not his. The respondent alleges that he is the beneficial owner of the property.
-
The applicant has previously commenced three applications before the Tribunal with respect to the same property and the same alleged residential tenancy agreement.
-
The first application was commenced…
Continue reading Mendonca v Tonna
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mendonca v Tonna [2017] NSWCATCD 47
- Case
- [2017] NSWCATCD 47
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Federal Circuit Court or the Supreme Court of New South Wales should retain jurisdiction over the matter. The Tribunal needed to consider the nature of the proceedings, the subject matter, and any relevant legislative provisions that might guide the decision. It was also necessary to assess if concurrent proceedings were appropriate or if one court should assume jurisdiction over the other.
The Tribunal reasoned that the Federal Circuit Court had initially commenced proceedings, but the Supreme Court of New South Wales had also taken on a related matter. Given the complexity and interconnectedness of the issues, the Tribunal determined that it was in the interests of justice for the proceedings to be transferred to a single court to avoid potential inconsistencies and to streamline the litigation process. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and decided that the issue of transfer would be resolved based on the written submissions. If the parties wished to be heard in person, they were required to notify the Tribunal by a specific date. In the absence of further submissions, the Tribunal would proceed to make its decision on the papers.
The Tribunal made an order staying the proceedings until further orders. The respondent was instructed to provide any documents and submissions in relation to the transfer of the matter to the Supreme Court by 10 July 2017. The applicant was to provide any documents and submissions in relation to the transfer of the matter to the Supreme Court by 25 July 2017. If no further submissions were received, the Tribunal would proceed to make a decision on the papers.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The proceedings are stayed until further orders of the Tribunal.
(2) The respondent is to provide any documents and submissions in relation to transfer of the matter to the Supreme Court by 10 July 2017.
(3) The applicant is to provide any documents and submissions in relation to transfer of the matter to the Supreme Court by 25 July 2017.
(4) The issue of the transfer will be decided on the papers. In the event that the parties wish to be heard in person they must advise the Tribunal on or before 25 July 2017. If no further submissions are received, the Tribunal will proceed to make a decision on the papers.
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.