Robinson-Murray v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal - [2013] NSWSC 1914

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Robinson-Murray v Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal [2013] NSWSC 1914
Hearing dates: 20/11/2013; 17/12/2013
Decision date: 20 December 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Administrative Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
The Court orders that:
(1) The appeal is upheld.
(2) The orders of Tribunal Member D Turley dated 14 February 2013 are set aside.
(3) The matter is remitted to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to be determined according to law.
(4) The second defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - appeal from decision of Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal - part of proceedings held in absence of party - whether plaintiff denied procedural fairness
Legislation Cited: Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001
Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited: Italiano v Carbone [2005] NSWCA 177
Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550
Maconachie v Kullenberg [2005] NSWCA 294
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jessica Robinson-Murray (Plaintiff)
Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal (First Defendant)
SSS Best Cars Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
J Robinson-Murray (Plaintiff in person)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor (Submitting Appearance First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/127346
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2013-02-14 00:00:00

Before:

Tribunal Member D Turley

File Number(s):

MV 12/51721

Judgment

HER HONOUR: The circumstances giving rise to this application are unusual. By amended summons filed 17 May 2013, the plaintiff seeks to appeal the decision of Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Member D Turley dated 14 February 2013, in order to "get back $1500 we were not given for the car, $542 that we had to pay to try and get it registered just after we brought it, $77 to get it started 18 days after purchase, NRMA had to get it to a auto electrician to fix it." The main issue to be determined is whether the plaintiff was afforded procedural fairness at the hearing in the Tribunal.

The plaintiff in these proceedings is Jessica Robinson-Murray, who was the plaintiff in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal proceedings ("the CTTT"). The first defendant in these proceedings is the CTTT, who has filed a submitting appearance. The second defendant in these proceedings is SSS Best Cars Pty Ltd ("SSS Best Cars"), who was the defendant in the CTTT proceedings.

On 10 October 2013, this matter was specially fixed for hearing in this Court on 20 November 2013. Ms Robinson-Murray was self-represented. Her mother accompanied her. There was no appearance of the defendant. SSS Best Cars, Theresa Barg and Sam Barg were called three times outside the Court. There was no appearance on behalf of the second defendant.

On 10 October 2013, the Registrar directed the Registry to notify the defendants of the hearing date of 20 November 2013. At the conclusion of the hearing before this Court, it came…

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 Robinson-Murray v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal 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: [2013] NSWSC 1914
Decision Date: 20 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robinson-Murray v Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal involved a dispute where the plaintiff, Robinson-Murray, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. The dispute centred around the conduct of certain proceedings during which the plaintiff was not present, leading to a challenge on the basis that this omission denied the plaintiff procedural fairness. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the absence of the plaintiff during part of the proceedings before the Tribunal constituted a denial of procedural fairness. This issue required the court to consider the principles of natural justice and the extent to which they were adhered to in the circumstances of the case. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Tribunal's failure to ensure the plaintiff's presence for part of the proceedings resulted in a decision that was unjust or unfair.

In addressing the issue, the court examined the procedural fairness requirements established in administrative law. The court noted that procedural fairness generally requires that a person be given an opportunity to be heard before an adverse decision is made. The court found that, in this instance, the absence of the plaintiff during part of the proceedings did indeed constitute a breach of procedural fairness. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was tainted by this procedural irregularity, and as a result, the decision was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration, ensuring that the plaintiff was present and afforded an opportunity to be heard.

The final orders of the court mandated that the proceedings be reheard by the Tribunal, with the plaintiff present for the entirety of the hearing. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making processes, reiterating the need for tribunals to strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice to ensure fair and just outcomes.

Orders