Milenkovic v West (Appeal)

Case [2024] ACAT 63

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

MILENKOVIC v WEST (Appeal) [2024] ACAT 63

AA 16/2024 (XD 1055/2023)

Catchwords:               APPEALS – civil dispute – where Original Tribunal adjourned the hearing several times to allow respondent to locate her expert witness – where the Original Tribunal asked appellant whether it was okay for it to read respondent’s late evidence but did not ask him whether he objected to it – where Original Tribunal intervened in hearing with questions – whether a reasonable apprehension of bias arose – whether Original Tribunal erred by disregarding certain evidence

Legislation cited:        ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 82

Subordinate

Legislation cited:        ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedures Rules 2020 r 91

Cases cited:Adam v R [2001] HCA 57

Amer v Eriksson (Appeal) [2019] ACAT 108
CDJ v VAJ(No 1) [1998] HCA 67
Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29
Chetcuti v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 112
Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Hobbs v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Anor (Administrative Review) [2022] ACAT 76
Hurst-Myers v Aulich Civil Law Pty Ltd (Civil Dispute) [2020] ACAT 56
Ikechukwu v Duong (Appeal) [2018] ACAT 97
Johnson v Johnson (No 3) [2000] HCA 48
Kolodzeij v Ali & Anor (Appeal) [2021] ACAT 114
Krutsky v Commissioner for Social Housing (Appeal) [2023] ACAT 68
LP 202001 v Council of the Law Society of the ACT (Appeal) [2022] ACAT 80
Mansour v Dangar (Appeal) [2017] ACAT 49
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 66 ALR 239
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 87 ALR 633

AppealTribunal:  Presidential Member J Lucy

Date of Orders and Reasons:       27 August 2024

Date of Publication:  3 September 2024

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY          )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          AA 16/2024

BETWEEN:

BOBAN MILENKOVIC
Appellant

AND:

RAELENE WEST
Respondent

APPEAL TRIBUNAL:        Presidential Member J Lucy

DATE:27 August 2024

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

  1. The appeal is dismissed.

    ………………………………..

Presidential Member J Lucy

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Original Tribunal that a concreter pay a homeowner $20,017, to compensate the homeowner for paying for a defective concrete slab and driveway installed by the concreter, and for the cost of its removal.

  2. I have found that the Original Tribunal did not make any of the errors identified by the concreter. Accordingly, I have dismissed the appeal.

Background

  1. The respondent, Ms Raelene West (the homeowner), engaged the appellant, Mr Boban Milenkovic (the concreter), to carry out concreting work at her home. The work involved the construction of a concrete slab for a carport and a concrete driveway.

  2. The homeowner brought proceedings in the tribunal claiming that the concreter’s work was defective. Both parties relied on expert evidence relevant to the question of whether the concreting work was done in a proper and workmanlike manner.

  3. The Original Tribunal accepted the evidence of the homeowner’s expert, Mr Damien Moloney, that the work was defective, and that the only way to fix the…

Continue reading Milenkovic v West (Appeal)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Milenkovic v West (Appeal) [2024] ACAT 63
Case
[2024] ACAT 63
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Milenkovic v West (Appeal) involved the parties Milenkovic, the appellant, and West, the respondent, in a dispute concerning the proper interpretation and application of certain provisions within the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia presided over this appeal, reviewing a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The primary issue before the court was whether the AAT had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in determining the respondent's eligibility for a visa. Specifically, the court needed to decide if the AAT had erred in its interpretation of the provisions concerning the respondent's character and the good character requirement for visa applicants.

In examining the AAT's decision, the court considered whether the AAT had adequately addressed the evidence presented regarding the respondent's character and whether the AAT's findings were supported by the evidence. The court also assessed whether the AAT had correctly applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Ultimately, the court found that the AAT had appropriately considered the evidence and had not erred in its interpretation of the statutory provisions. The court held that the AAT's decision was supported by the evidence and that the appeal should be dismissed. The appeal was thus dismissed, affirming the AAT's determination that the respondent did not meet the good character requirement for the visa.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

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.