ALEXIS-NICOLAS TESSIER v TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND and TANYA SUTHERLAND [2014] NSWCATAP 109

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: ALEXIS-NICOLAS TESSIER v TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND and TANYA SUTHERLAND [2014] NSWCATAP 109 Decision date: 16 December 2014 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: Acting District Court Judge Hon Graham Mullane Ms Christine Paull Senior Member Decision: 1) The Notice of Appeal filed 30 May 2014 is dismissed. Catchwords: Appeal - Outside appeal period - Extension of time refused - Lack of merit of appeal. Legislation Cited: Consumer Claims Act 1998 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation, 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules, 2014 Cases Cited: Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30; Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Appellant: ALEXIS-NICOLAS TESSIER Respondents: TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND and TANYA SUTHERLAND Representation: Nil Nil File Number(s): AP14/46401 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Jurisdiction: 150003 Citation: Timothy Sutherland and Tanya Sutherland v Alexis - Nicholas Tessier (unreported) Date of Decision: 2014-04-02 00:00:00 Before: Ms F E Gray File Number(s): GEN 13/50883

reasons for decision

INTRODUCTION 1The Appellant is a commercial photographer and was engaged by the Respondents to do photography on their wedding day. The Respondents paid the Appellant $6,472 for the wedding photography package, which included the standard photography, a video with sound, and an album of their chosen favourite photographs from the photographs taken. 2At the Appellant's suggestion the Respondents hired an antique car for use in photographs. This cost $880. 3The Respondents requested the Appellant to stay the night before the wedding at the venue where guests for the wedding would be staying so that he could meet them as preparation for his photography the next day. That cost them $350. 4After the wedding the Respondents complained that Some of the video had no sound; many of the photographs were of poor quality; because the Appellant had arrived at the venue late on the night before the wedding, he had not had the opportunity to meet with any of the guests; and because of the poor quality of the photographs taken with the motor vehicle the expenditure for the motor vehicle was a waste of money. 5The Respondents commenced proceedings in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, one of the Tribunals that was from 1 January 2014 superseded by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. They made a claim against the Appellant under the Consumer Claims Act, 1998. The hearing took place on 22 January 2014 in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal Member delivered the Orders and Reasons on 2 April 2014. 6The Orders of the Tribunal of 2 April 2014 made the following requirements of the parties: 6.1) The Appellant was to provide the DVD's in accordance with the contract with the sound rectified on or before 14 April 2014. 6.2) The Respondents were to advise the Appellant by the close of business on 14 April 2014 as to which 80 to 140 photographs they wished to have included in their wedding album. 6.3) The Appellant was to provide the wedding album to the Respondents on or before 12 May 2014. 6.4) The Appellant was to pay the Respondents the sum of $2,800 in compensation on or before 12 May 2014. 6.5) All other aspects of the Respondents' claim were dismissed. 7The Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on 30 May 2014. This is the hearing of the Appeal.