Haines v Tohadze [2021] NSWCATAP 40

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Haines v Tohadze [2021] NSWCATAP 40 Hearing dates: 12 February 2021 Date of orders: 22 February 2021 Decision date: 22 February 2021 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: G Curtin SC, Senior Member S Goodman SC, Senior Member Decision: Appeal dismissed Catchwords: APPEALS – procedural fairness – hearing rule – no procedural unfairness established – possibility of a different outcome had there been a properly conducted hearing not established Legislation Cited: None cited Cases Cited: Australian Health & Nutrition Association Ltd v Hive Marketing Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 61; (2019) 99 NSWLR 419 House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Stead v State Government Insurance Commission [1986] HCA 54; (1986) 161 CLR 141 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Simon Haines (Appellant) Jasmin Tohadze (Respondent) Representation: Appellant (Self Represented) V Tohadze (on behalf of the Respondent) File Number(s): AP 20/48260 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 12 November 2020 Before: C Campbell, General Member File Number(s): RT 20/14726

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. This is an appeal by a tenant from orders made by the Tribunal in favour of the landlord. In essence the tenant says that the Tribunal's decision was infected by procedural fairness. 2. In our opinion the appeal must fail. We are not persuaded there was any procedural unfairness. Further, assuming for the purpose of argument that there had been procedural fairness, the tenant has failed to demonstrate that there was a possibility that there would have been a different result in the Tribunal at first instance had a properly conducted hearing taken place.