NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Buses & 4WD Hire Pty Limited v Richardson [2016] NSWCATAP 24 Hearing dates: 25 November 2105 Date of orders: 03 February 2016 Decision date: 03 February 2016 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: J Redfern, Principal Member K Rosser, Senior Member Decision: Appeal dismissed and leave to appeal refused Catchwords: APPEAL – Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NSW) – consumer claim – whether breach of rental agreement for the hire of a coach – coach damaged – supplier deducted money from credit card for damage – proceedings commenced by consumer for recovery of money and orders for relief – proceedings also commenced by supplier in Tribunal and local court – whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine supplier's claim – whether determination was made in the consumer proceedings – scope of s 8 of the former Consumer Claims Act – no jurisdictional error – whether findings open on the evidence – whether Tribunal failed to identify and address a critical issue – adequacy of reasons – no error of law– leave to appeal refused – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Consumer Claims Act 1998 (NSW) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Fair Trading Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Act 2015 (NSW) Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27 Bisley Investment Corporation v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal [1982] FCA 58 Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Fordham v Davies [2014] NSWCATAP 60 John Prendergast & Vanessa Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69 Minister For Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259. O'Brien v Repatriation Commission (1984) 1 FCR 472 P v Child Support Registrar [2015] FCA 116 Resource Pacific Pty Ltd v Wilkinson [2013] NSWCA 33 Waterford v Commonwealth (1990) 163 CLR 54 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Buses & 4WD Hire Pty Limited (Appellant) Hamish Richardson (Respondent) Representation: Bryce Douglas-Baker, Counsel (Appellant) Geoffrey Mendelson Lawyers (Appellant)
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