Style Tiles and Bathrooms Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATOD 69

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Style Tiles and Bathrooms Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATOD 69 Hearing dates: 18 May 2021 Date of orders: 25 May 2021 Decision date: 25 May 2021 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: K Ransome, Senior Member Decision: The application to extend time for the lodging of the application is refused. Catchwords: PROCEDURAL – application for extension of time – length of delay – whether reasonable prospects of success Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 Home Building Act 1989 Cases Cited: CFA v Department of Family and Community Services [2016] NSWCATAD 32 CFZ v Department of Education [2015] NSWCATAD 231 Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22 Kee v Commissioner of NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATAD 73 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Style Tiles and Bathrooms Pty Ltd (Applicant) Commissioner for Fair Trading (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: S Graham (Applicant) Legal, Corporate Services, Department of Customer Service (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/00075376 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 23 March 2020 the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal made a decision in an application brought by Empirica Frameless Glass Pty Ltd (Empirica) against the applicant in these proceedings, Style Tiles and Bathrooms Pty Ltd (Style Tiles and Bathrooms). Empirica was seeking payment for 61 unpaid invoices for the supply and installation of glass shower screens for Style Tiles and Bathrooms. The Tribunal ordered that Style Tiles and Bathrooms pay Empirica an amount of $57,053 immediately. 2. Following on from the Tribunal's order, NSW Fair Trading sent a warning letter to Style Tiles and Bathrooms indicating that failure to pay the debt may result in its license being suspended under section 42A of the Home Building Act 1989. NSW Fair Trading states that Sue Graham, on behalf of Style Tiles and Bathrooms, advised that their solicitor was looking at appealing the decision or applying to have the judgement set aside. Ms Graham was advised to seek a stay if an appeal against the decision was lodged. No appeal was in fact lodged. 3. On 17 April 2020, Style Tiles and Bathrooms lodged an application to renew its contractor licence. On 13 July 2020, NSW Fair Trading refused to renew the license because Style Tiles and Bathrooms was subject to an order of the Tribunal that had not been satisfied within the period specified in the order. The decision was made in accordance with s 33B(1)(a)(vi) of the Home Building Act which provides that a license must not be issued unless each relevant person in relation to the application for the licence is not subject to any order of the Tribunal that has not been satisfied within the period required. That decision was affirmed on internal review on 27 August 2020. 4. On 17 March 2021 Style Tiles and Bathrooms made an application to the Occupational Division of the Tribunal seeking review of the decision to refuse to renew the license. 5. The application is plainly out of time. In accordance with Rule 24(4)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014, a review application must be made within 28 days from the day on which the person was notified of the decision. Style Tiles and Bathrooms filed its application more than 5 months out of time. Section 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 provides that the Tribunal may extend the period of time for filing of an application for review of a decision.