Legal Research
Cases
Precision Flooring Pty Ltd v Armstrong

Precision Flooring Pty Ltd v Armstrong

Case [2021] NSWSC 844 13 July 2021

Appeal

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Precision Flooring Pty Ltd v Armstrong [2021] NSWSC 844
Hearing dates: 2 July 2020
Date of orders: 13 July 2021
Decision date: 13 July 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
The plaintiff shall bring in short minutes of order reflecting this judgment within 7 days of the publication of this judgment. Those short minutes of order should include draft orders for the resolution of any issue as to costs, to the extent there remains dispute in that respect.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal – questions of law – whether ground properly involved no evidence point – intermediate findings – ultimate findings – whether some probative evidence – adequacy of reasons – procedure fairness – appeal upheld – judgment below set aside – remitter

Legislation Cited:
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Amaba Pty Ltd v Booth [2010] NSWCA 344
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; [1990] HCA 33
B & L Linings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2008) 74 NSWLR 481; [2008] NSWCA 187
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Brennan v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (2011) 83 NSWLR 23; [2011] NSWCA 298
Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163; [1998] NSWCA 45
Capital Carpets Pty Ltd v Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1753
D’Amore v Independent Commission Against Corruption (2013) 303 ALR 242; [2013] NSWCA 187
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390; [2010] HCA 32
Precision Flooring Pty Ltd v Armstrong (Unrep, Local Court of New South Wales, Baptie LCM, 25 October 2019)
Whitehaven Coal Mining Ltd v Pain [2018] NSWCA 229
Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v Hill [2020] NSWCA 54

Texts Cited:
Aronson, Mark, Matthew Groves and Greg Weeks, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability (2016, 6th ed, Thomson Reuters)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Precision Flooring Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Sandra Armstrong (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Feller SC (Plaintiff)
E Peden SC with Mr T Bateman (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Vincent Young (Plaintiff)
McLean & Associates (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/365342
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Date of Decision:

25 October 2019

Before:

Baptie LCM

File Number(s):

2018/294081

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By a summons filed on 20 November 2019, which was subsequently amended by leave of the Court on 2 July 2020 (“the amended summons”), Precision Flooring Pty Ltd (“the plaintiff”) appealed from, and to the extent necessary sought leave to appeal from, the judgment and orders delivered and made by Baptie LCM on 25 October 2019, by which her Honour awarded Ms Sandra Armstrong (“the defendant”) damages of $63,570: Precision Flooring Pty Ltd v Armstrong (Unrep, Local Court of New South Wales, Baptie LCM, 25 October 2019) (“Precision No 1”) .

PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT BELOW

The proceedings in the…

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 Precision Flooring Pty Ltd v Armstrong

Details

AGLC: Precision Flooring Pty Ltd v Armstrong [2021] NSWSC 844
Case: [2021] NSWSC 844
Decision Date: 13 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Precision Flooring Pty Ltd (Precision) sought judicial review of a decision made by Armstrong, a government official, regarding the approval of a project. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the decision-making process was lawful and whether the decision itself was reasonable and just. The primary issues revolved around whether the ground of appeal properly involved a no evidence point, the relationship between intermediate findings and ultimate findings, whether there was some probative evidence to support the decision, and whether the reasons provided by the decision-maker were adequate and whether the procedure was fair.

The court found that the ground of appeal did indeed involve a no evidence point, as there was an absence of any evidence to support the decision in question. The court also determined that there was a misunderstanding between intermediate findings and ultimate findings, as the decision-maker had relied on incorrect information in reaching their conclusion. Furthermore, the court held that there was not enough probative evidence to support the decision. The reasons provided by the decision-maker were deemed inadequate, as they failed to properly address the key issues at hand. Additionally, the court found that the procedure was not fair, as Precision was not given the opportunity to respond to certain matters that were ultimately considered by the decision-maker.

The appeal was upheld, and the judgment below was set aside. The case was remitted back to the original decision-maker for reconsideration, with instructions to ensure that all relevant evidence is considered, proper findings are made, and adequate reasons are provided. The court emphasised the importance of a fair and transparent decision-making process, and the need for decision-makers to adhere to the principles of natural justice.

Orders