NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: ACS Equip Pty Ltd v Richard [2020] NSWCATAP 236 Hearing dates: 5 November 2020 Date of orders: 16 November 2020 Decision date: 16 November 2020 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: P Durack SC, Senior Member G Curtin SC, Senior Member Decision: (1) The appeal is allowed. (2) Set aside the orders made on 14 July 2020 in proceedings GEN 19/50081 and GEN 20/13274. (3) Remit the proceedings in GEN 19/50081 and GEN 20/13274 to a differently constituted Tribunal for a new hearing and re-determination of the claims based upon the evidence already adduced by the parties in those proceedings and upon such additional evidence as the Tribunal at first instance may allow. (4) Any application in respect of the costs of the appeal is to be made by lodging with the Tribunal and providing to the opposite party, within 10 days, written submissions, including submissions as to whether a party agrees that a hearing in respect of costs should be dispensed, along with any evidence a party may wish to rely upon. (5) Any written submissions and evidence that a party wishes to rely upon in reply to the material supplied under Order 4 are to be lodged with the Tribunal and provided to the opposite party within 7 days of receipt of such material. Catchwords: CONSUMER CLAIM-supply of services-appeal-failing to ask the right questions as to the applicable causes of action-error of law-adequacy of reasons. Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (NSW) (2013) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Curtis v Potter & Co Pty Ltd t/as The Africa Safari Co [2016] NSWCATAP 196 New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Orr [2019] NSW CA 231 Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales v Forbidden Foods Pty Limited; Forbidden Foods Pty Limited v Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales [2020] NSWCATAP 182 Category: Principal judgment Parties: ACS Equip Pty Ltd (Appellant) John Richard (First Respondent) Carol Richard (Second Respondent) Jeffrey Richard (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Crossland and J Widjaja (Appellant)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate