Selina Khoo v Handi Setyadi

[2023] NSWCATEN 8

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Selina Khoo v Handi Setyadi [2023] NSWCATEN 8

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

14 November 2023

Decision date:

14 November 2023

Jurisdiction:

Enforcement

Before:

Coleman SC ADCJ

Decision:

1. Pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) the Tribunal dispenses with a hearing of the Applicant’s application.

2. The application filed on 26 April 2023 is dismissed.

Catchwords:

ENFORCEMENT- where applicant was pursuing other available remedies in the Tribunal to secure compliance with orders alleged to have been breached by the respondent on which referral application was based- whether respondent should be referred to Supreme Court for contempt of the Tribunal- where applicant failed to adduce admissible evidence capable of establishing alleged contempt

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98; [1986] HCA 46

Burns v Corbett [2015] NSWCATAD 188

DVI v ZTT [2021] NSWCATEN 4

Mohareb v Palmer [2017] NSWCA 281

National Australia Bank Limited v Juric [2001] VSC 375

Ros v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 70

Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525; [1995] HCA 3

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Selina Khoo- Applicant
Handi Setyadi- Respondent

Representation:

Applicant- Self represented
Respondent- Self represented

File Number(s):

2023/00325699

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. By referral application dated 25 April 2023 Selina Khoo (Applicant) sought an order with respect to Handi Setyadi (Respondent) in the following terms:

“Contempt of Tribunal – in advance of hearing on 28/4/23, or considered soon after”

2. Attached to the referral application were orders of the Tribunal of 19 December 2022 and the reasons for those orders, a series of copies of ledger statements and emails and the purported grounds of the Applicant’s application. Although not identifying the jurisdictional basis of her application, the Applicant’s complaints appear to allege that the Respondent was guilty of contempt of the Tribunal in that he had failed to comply with, or had breached orders made by the Tribunal. Inferentially, the Applicant sought that, pursuant to the provisions of s 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (CAT Act), the Tribunal exercise its discretion to refer the Respondent to the Supreme Court to be dealt with for contempt.

3. The Applicant alleged that:

“Despite orders being made to do so by the Tribunal, the landlord (Respondent) has to this day continued to refuse to make work order repairs, and has retaliated in increasingly severe ways, as well as fabricating official tenancy documents. This has caused an incredible amount of stress as a tenant, and the landlord/rental agency, Raine & Horne seem completely unfazed by refusing to carry out repairs.”

4. The Applicant further stated that she had “included below some of the key pieces of evidence to back up my claim”, and that any “other evidence necessary is available in…