Tanious v NSW Land and Housing Corporation

The appeal concerned an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a primary judge's refusal to grant leave to appeal against a decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The primary judge had refused leave to appeal on the basis that the applicant had failed to identify questions of law, as required by section 83(1) of the *Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013* (NSW).

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in refusing leave to appeal. This required the Court to consider whether the applicant had, in fact, identified questions of law in their proposed appeal to the primary judge, and if not, whether the primary judge's conclusion that they had not was correct.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the primary judge's reasons for refusing leave. It was held that the applicant had not adequately identified questions of law as required by the legislation, and therefore, the threshold for granting leave to appeal to the primary judge had not been met. Consequently, the primary judge's decision to refuse leave was upheld.

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.