Lanser v Halycon Super Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 169

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Lanser v Halycon Super Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 169 Hearing dates: 16 May 2022 Date of orders: 24 May 2022 Decision date: 24 May 2022 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: G Blake AM SC, Senior Member G Curtin SC, Senior Member Decision: The appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — particular administrative bodies — NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal – hearing rule – opportunity to be heard – no such opportunity lost – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Pejay Lanser (First Appellant) Self Made Construction Group Pty Ltd (Second Appellant) Halycon Super Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Mark Davy (Second Respondent) Representation: P Lanser (in person and on behalf of the Second Appellant) M Davy (in person and on behalf of the First Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/00050568 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Date of Decision: 3 February 2022 Before: D Moss, General Member File Number(s): HB 21/37800

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The appellants did not lodge or serve any evidence before the hearing conducted by the Tribunal and did not appear at the Tribunal hearing. A decision was made against them. 2. In this appeal they allege that they did not lodge or serve any evidence because they were misled by the respondents that they would not be pursuing the Tribunal proceedings and did not appear (by telephone) at the hearing because they were in an area of the Blue Mountains which did not have mobile telephone reception. They also assert that it is not possible to comply with one of the Tribunal's orders concerning the provision of a plumbing certificate. 3. As explained at greater length below, the appellants were not misled by the respondents, the fault for their non-appearance at the hearing was entirely theirs, and there is no evidence that it was not possible for them to comply with the Tribunal's order. 4. For the reasons that follow the appeal is dismissed.