Paton v Orton [2014] NSWCATAP 104

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Paton v Orton [2014] NSWCATAP 104 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 10 December 2014 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: N Hennessy, Deputy President S Westgarth, Deputy President Decision: Leave to appeal refused Catchwords: INTERNAL APPEAL - decision to refuse to extend timetable to allow filing of evidence in reply - interlocutory matter - leave required - appeal filed out of time Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Australia v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 (5 August 2009) Di Salvo v Leung [2014] NSWCATAP 44 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Hamish Paton Mark Orton Representation: Kent McRae (Appellant) James G Sloan Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): AP 14/55593 Decision under appeal Jurisdiction: 150003 Date of Decision: 2014-10-13 00:00:00 Before: G Meadows, Senior Member File Number(s): HB 13/33067

reasons for decision

Background 1This is an appeal from an interlocutory decision made in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal on 13 October 2014. The notice of appeal from that decision was filed in the Tribunal on 18 November 2014. 2The proceedings concern an application filed on 7 June 2013 in the Home Building Division of the Tribunal's antecedent, the Consumer Trader Tenancy Tribunal. The applicant sought compensation in the sum of $50,000 from the respondent, builder. 3The appellant is the applicant in the proceedings below. 4The decision which is the subject of this appeal was to refuse the applicant's application for an adjournment of the hearing on 15 December 2015 to allow the applicant to file additional expert evidence and to further amend the application by adding another item. Brief reasons were given and these are set out below: "The applicant has been forced to recently change solicitors again, back to Mr McCrae. Mr McCrae today sought to file additional expert evidence and to further amend the application by adding another item. This application was refused, The matter has been listed 6 or 7 times for directions and was filed as long ago as June 2013. In addition, the parties have just filed a joint expert report following an agreement at the last Directions Hearing to do so. The prejudice to the respondent and the lengthy delay the applicant's application today would cause cannot in my view be cured by a costs order. It is not reasonable to seek a further adjournment and a further amendment and further evidence at this stage. The matter is set down for hearing for 3 days, based on the advice of the parties as to the witnesses required for cross examination. If the parties consider the matter can be determined in a shorter period they should contact the Registry with that advice at the earliest opportunity. Parties are to provide documents in a folder, secured by means of rings or other binding device, typed (except for copies of original handwritten documents), with numbered pages and an index."