Micron Constructions P/L v Goodridge - [2005] NSWSC 1224

CITATION:
Micron Constructions P/L v Goodridge & Anor [2005] NSWSC 1224

HEARING DATE(S): 6 September 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

2 December 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division
Administrative Law List

JUDGMENT OF:
Associate Justice Harrison

DECISION:
(1) The appeal is upheld; (2) The decisions of the CTTT dated 11 February 2004 and 17 December 2004 are set aside; (3) The matter is remitted to the CTTT to be determined according to law; (4) The first defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed; (5) The first defendant is to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act.

CATCHWORDS:
Appeal decision of CTTT - adjournment - denial of procedural fairness

LEGISLATION CITED:
Consumer Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW)
- ss 65 & 67
Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW)

CASES CITED:
Chapman v Taylor & Ors; Vero Insurance Ltd v Taylor & Ors [2004] NSWCA 456
Kalokerinos & Anor v HIA Insurance Services P/L & Anor [2004] NSWCA 312
Kearns & Anor v Fair Trading Tribunal of NSW & Anor [2001] NSWSC 951
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Krslovic Homes v Sparkes & Ors [2004] NSWSC 374
Sali v SPC Ltd & Anor (1993) 116 ALR 625
State of Queensland v J L Holdings (1997) 189 CLR 146
Thomas & Anor v Nedeljkovic [2004] NSWSC 524

PARTIES:
Micron Constructions Pty Limited ACN 066 338 252
(Plaintiff)
Ross Goodridge
(First Defendant)
CTTT
(Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 30005/2005

COUNSEL:
Mr R Zikmann
(Plaintiff)
Ms M Allars
(First Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Mr Marc Hutchings,
Marc Hutchings & Associates
(Plaintiff)
Mr Julian Sefton,
Snelgroves
(First Defendant)
Submitting Appearance
Mr I V Knight,
Crown Solicitor
(Second Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
HB 03/23377

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Tribunal Member

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

FRIDAY, 2 DECEMBER 2005

30005/2005 - MICRON CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LIMITED
ACN 066 338 252 v ROSS GOODRIDGE
& ANOR
JUDGMENT (Appeal decision of CTTT – adjourment -
denial of procedural fairness)

1 HER HONOUR: By amended summons filed 20 May 2005 the plaintiff seeks firstly, an order of certiorari in proceedings No. HB 03/23377 in the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT); secondly, an order quashing the decision of the CTTT on the ground that it was denied procedural fairness; and thirdly, an order that the decisions of the CTTT be set aside pursuant to s 67 of the Consumer Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW) (the Act).

2 The plaintiff is Micron Constructions Pty Limited (the builder). Ross Goodridge (the owner) is the first defendant. The CTTT is the second defendant and has filed a submitting appearance. The builder relied on the affidavit of Peter Snelgrove sworn 31 May 2005 and Marc Hutchings sworn 30 June 2005. Goodridge relied on the affidavit of Julian Peter Sefton sworn 15 June 2005.

3 The plaintiff relies upon both ss 65 and 67 of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy…

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 Micron Constructions P/L v Goodridge

Details

AGLC: Micron Constructions P/L v Goodridge [2005] NSWSC 1224
Case: [2005] NSWSC 1224
Decision Date: 2 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Micron Constructions P/L against the decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in relation to an adjournment of a hearing. The matter involved a dispute over the refusal by the tribunal to adjourn the hearing, which was contested by Goodridge, the respondent. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had appellate jurisdiction over decisions made by the CAT.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the CAT had denied Goodridge procedural fairness by refusing to adjourn the hearing. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the refusal to adjourn constituted a denial of procedural fairness under the Administrative Procedures Act. The court also considered whether the CAT had correctly exercised its discretion in relation to the adjournment and whether there were any grounds for the appeal based on the tribunal's handling of the procedural fairness issue.

The court found that the CAT had indeed denied Goodridge procedural fairness by refusing to adjourn the hearing without providing adequate reasons or considering the circumstances that justified an adjournment. The court held that the tribunal had failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision, which was necessary to ensure that the respondent had a fair opportunity to present their case. The court further determined that the CAT's handling of the adjournment application did not meet the standards of procedural fairness required by law. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the CAT for reconsideration, with a direction to provide proper reasons for any future refusal to adjourn the hearing.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal, the quashing of the CAT's decision to refuse the adjournment, and the direction for the CAT to reconsider the adjournment application, ensuring that procedural fairness was observed. The case underscored the importance of providing adequate reasons for decisions that impact the rights of parties involved in administrative proceedings.

Orders