NSW Caselaw
District Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ghosh v Miller (CTTT Appeal) [2014] NSWDC 228 Hearing dates: 24 and 29 July 2014 Decision date: 06 August 2014 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Judgment for the defendant. (2) Costs reserved with liberty to apply. (3) Exhibits retained for 28 days. Catchwords: CTTT APPEAL - appeal from award of damages arising out of a letting agreement for a Gold Coast holiday home - plaintiff challenged jurisdiction on the basis that the property was in Queensland - CTTT makes interim ruling that it had jurisdiction as the contract was entered into when the parties were in New South Wales (Consumer Claims Act 1998 (NSW), s 7(2)(c)) - claim then listed for hearing - plaintiff declines to offer evidence or participate in hearing and Tribunal Member comes to the same finding as to jurisdiction - on appeal to this court, the plaintiff asserts legal error on the basis that she was in Queensland at the time and that the offer was therefore accepted in Queensland - whether plaintiff ever told the CTTT she was in Queensland - whether the CTTT was under a duty to assist the plaintiff by looking behind its interim finding to see if there was another basis for the plaintiff to challenge to jurisdiction - no grounds of appeal in this court challenged the CTTT member's finding that the plaintiff was the offeree - whether plaintiff should be permitted to amend her appeal after prior orders refusing further leave to amend had been made - whether the plaintiff was in fact the offeree - appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Consumer Claims Act 1998 (NSW), s 7 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 60 and 98 Cases Cited: MacRobertson Miller Airlines v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) (1975) 133 CLR 125 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401 Texts Cited: - Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Ratna Ghosh Defendant: Rodney Miller Representation: Plaintiff: Mr C J Dibb Defendant: Ms J Reid Plaintiff: Carters Law Firm Defendant: Higgins & Dix File Number(s): 2013/323249 Publication restriction: None
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate