Maxwell-Smith v Consumer Claims Tribunal [1999] NSWCA 391

New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION : Maxwell-Smith v Consumer Claims Tribunal [1999] NSWCA 391 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40997/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 18/10/99 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 October 1999

PARTIES : Eugene Maxwell-Smith v Consumer Claims Tribunal & Anor JUDGMENT OF : Fitzgerald JA at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 30021/98 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Greg James J

COUNSEL : In person (Appellant) P Cattini (Respondent) SOLICITORS : In person [Appellant) Sautelle & White (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : DECISION : Application dismissed

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA40997/98 FITZGERALD JA

Monday, 18 October 1999 Eugene MAXWELL-SMITH v CONSUMER CLAIMS TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT 1 FITZGERALD JA: I have read the judgment of this Court refusing leave to appeal from the judgment of Greg James J, refusing judicial review of a decision of the Consumer Claims Tribunal. The Court was of the opinion that, because of the provisions of the Consumer Claims Tribunal Act 1987, Mr and Mrs Maxwell-Smith have no arguable ground of appeal.

2 I have been informed by Mr Maxwell-Smith without objection from Mr Cattini on behalf of the respondent S & E Hall Pty Limited that that company has relocated its business to Maroochydore in Queensland from Tura Beach in this State but there is nothing before me to indicate that if the judgment against Mr and Mrs Maxwell-Smith is satisfied prior to the decision of their application for special leave to appeal to the High Court the company, S & E Hall Pty Limited, will be unable to repay the money.

3 In the circumstances, the only proper exercise of my discretion in accordance with the authorities is that the application for a stay be refused with costs. I add that it seems to me regrettable that this matter should have come before this Court on an application for a stay with the hearing in the High Court set down for little more than a month away when it is obvious that Mr and Mrs Maxwell-Smith who are unrepresented have a passionate belief that they have not yet had justice and do not understand yet why they are failing in their litigation. It is of course a matter for the judgment creditor but I take leave to wonder whether any real benefit is to be achieved by any step being taken to enforce the judgment against Mr and Mrs Maxwell-Smith before the matter has come before the High Court.