Superal-Wallace v Indypendynt Pty Ltd - [2017] ACTSC 8

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Superal-Wallace v Indypendynt Pty Ltd
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 8
Hearing Date:	19 January 2017
DecisionDate:	19 January 2017
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. No order as to costs.
Catchwords:	JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – statutory interpretation – whether right of appeal from ACAT available – whether decision of the President of ACAT is a decision of an appeal tribunal or a tribunal – definition of ‘appeal tribunal’
Legislation Cited:	ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), s 86
Cases Cited:	Legal Practitioner v Law Society of the ACT [2016] ACTSC 203
Parties:	Ma Lily Superal-Wallace (Appellant) Indypendynt Pty Ltd (First Respondent) National Warranty Company Pty Ltd (Second Respondent) Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Third Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented (Appellant) Jeffrey Silk (First Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented (Appellant) Jeffrey Silk Barrister and Solicitor (Respondents)
File Number:	SCA 2 of 2017
Decision under appeal:	Court: Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Before: President Linda Crebbin Date of Decision: 13 December 2016 Case Title: Superal-Wallace v Indypendynt Pty Ltd & Anor (Appeal) Citation: [2016] ACAT 144

ELKAIM J:

On 5 January 2017 the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal from decisions made in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). The history of the matter is fairly lengthy but the following, are the important dates. On 30 September 2013 the applicant purchased a Renault Scenic motor vehicle from the first respondent. That vehicle carried with it an extended warranty provided by the second respondent.

On 12 September 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint in ACAT because of problems that had arisen almost immediately concerning the motor vehicle. I will not detail all of those problems here because they are comprehensively set out in the various documents including the applicant's affidavit and the decisions made in ACAT.

On 4 November 2014 the application was discontinued. However, because problems continued to occur, including what seemed to the applicant to be a very dangerous fault with the motor vehicle, a second application was filed on 6 November 2015. That application came on for hearing before Senior Member Robinson on 21 September 2016. The application was dismissed.

The applicant was unhappy with that decision and lodged an appeal. Unfortunately the appeal was lodged out of time. That led to a decision of the President of ACAT dismissing the application for leave to appeal out of time. That occurred on 13 December 2016.

The applicant, as I have said, has now filed an application in this court for leave to appeal. It is clear from her documents, including her application and her affidavit, that the decisions from which she seeks leave to appeal are the decision of Senior Member Robinson and the decision of the President.

An appeal to this court from a decision of ACAT falls under s 86 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal ACT 2008 (ACT). Upon reading the applicant's documents it seemed to…

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 Superal-Wallace v Indypendynt Pty Ltd 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: [2017] ACTSC 8
Decision Date: 19 January 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Superal-Wallace sought to appeal a decision of the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (ACAT) to the Federal Court. The appeal was dismissed as the court found that the President of ACAT is not an appeal tribunal, and therefore, no appeal lies from their decision. The central issue was whether the decision of the President of ACAT constituted a decision of an appeal tribunal, which would have conferred upon the Federal Court the jurisdiction to hear an appeal. The court interpreted the definition of ‘appeal tribunal’ under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and concluded that the President of ACAT does not fit the definition of an appeal tribunal.

The court examined the statutory framework and the role of the President of ACAT, noting that the President acts in an individual capacity and not as part of a collegiate appellate body. The court distinguished between the decisions of the ACAT as a whole and the decisions of the President acting alone, holding that only the former could be appealed to the Federal Court. The court also considered the context and purpose of the legislation, finding that the intention was to limit appeals from individual decisions to a higher appellate tribunal. The reasoning was grounded in the precise wording of the legislation and the established hierarchy of tribunals within the administrative law framework.

Given the findings, the court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs. This outcome underscores the importance of precise statutory interpretation in administrative law and the need to carefully distinguish between different types of tribunal decisions when determining the availability of appeal rights. The decision highlights the limitations on the Federal Court's jurisdiction to review decisions of the President of ACAT, reinforcing the principle that not all tribunal decisions are appealable to higher courts without meeting specific statutory criteria.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

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.