Riaz v Technical and Further Education Commission - [2024] NSWSC 474

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Riaz v Technical and Further Education Commission [2024] NSWSC 474
Hearing dates: 9 April 2024
Date of orders: 29 April 2024
Decision date: 29 April 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McNaughton J
Decision:
The Summons seeking to transfer proceedings 2023/00284329 from the Local Court to the Supreme Court of New South Wales is dismissed with costs

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – application to transfer proceedings to the Supreme Court – where defendant in Local Court proceedings claimed unfair contract terms – where defendant seeks declaration that terms are void – whether matter can be dealt with in the Local Court – Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 140(1)

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2022 (NSW), ss 16, 31
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 140
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2, ss 18, 21, 23, 26, 50, 87S, 138B, 236, 237, 243, 250
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), ss 30, 71, 86
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), ss 29, 30

Cases Cited:
TH Drake & Associates Pty Ltd v Safaei [2022] NSWSC 1008

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rina Riaz (Plaintiff)
Technical and Further Education Commission (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
MinterEllison (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/33749
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Rana Riaz, the plaintiff, filed a Summons in the Supreme Court on 30 January 2024, seeking an order pursuant to s 140(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (“CPA”) to transfer proceedings from the Local Court to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The proceedings he sought to be transferred had been initiated by him in the Local Court against the Technical and Further Education Commission (“TAFE”) by way of Statement of Claim, filed on 6 September 2023.
This matter was heard before me, as the Common Law Duty Judge, on 9 April 2024.

Local Court Statement of Claim

On 6 September 2023, the plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim in the Local Court, against TAFE, the defendant.
The plaintiff alleged that he enrolled in a course called Certificate II in Electrotechnology (the “Electrotechnology Course”) and agreed to pay the course fees by instalments. He claims that partway into the course, he withdrew from the course and, from that point, he should not have been required to pay further instalments of the course fees to the defendant. He further claims that the defendant rejected his applications for enrolment in further courses on the incorrect basis that course fees were outstanding.
It is alleged this amounted to a breach of contract, breach of duty of care or negligence, misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and also that the contract was unfair.
The only relief sought by the plaintiff in the Local Court is damages of $100,000 and the recovery of filing fees. The pleadings identify ss losses as a result of TAFE determining that a debt was owing as: inconvenience and emotional distress; psychological harm; loss of opportunity to complete the courses;…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Riaz v Technical and Further Education Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWSC 474
Decision Date: 29 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Riaz, was involved in Local Court proceedings where he claimed that certain contract terms were unfair. He sought a declaration that these terms were void. The Technical and Further Education Commission applied to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court, arguing that the matter was beyond the jurisdiction of the Local Court. Riaz opposed the application, maintaining that the matter could be dealt with in the Local Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dispute regarding unfair contract terms could be resolved by the Local Court, or if it required the higher jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The court examined the statutory framework provided by the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), particularly section 140(1), which outlines the jurisdiction of the Local Court. It was necessary to determine if the matter involved complex legal issues or significant public interest that would necessitate a transfer to the Supreme Court.

In examining the matter, the court considered the nature of the claims made by Riaz and the complexity involved in determining the validity of the contract terms. The court noted that while the Local Court has broad jurisdiction, certain matters that involve intricate legal analysis or substantial public interest may require a higher court. Ultimately, the court determined that the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Local Court, as it did not present the complexity or public interest factors that would warrant a transfer to the Supreme Court.

The court dismissed the application to transfer the proceedings, allowing the matter to remain in the Local Court. This decision was based on the conclusion that the issues raised by Riaz could be adequately addressed within the jurisdiction of the Local Court, without necessitating the involvement of the Supreme Court.

Orders