Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Liang v University of Technology Sydney [2018] NSWSC 1740 Hearing dates: 13 November 2018 Decision date: 13 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: (1) Dismiss the plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 12 November 2018. (2) Order that costs of the notice of motion be reserved. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative tribunals – where plaintiff sought stay of proceedings before Appeal Panel of NCAT – no grounds for intervention of Supreme Court – stay refused Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 83 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), 69 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Guohua Liang (Plaintiff) University of Technology Sydney (First Defendant) John Colville (Second Defendant) Max Hendriks (Third Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff in person A Flecknoe-Brown (First, Second and Third Defendants) Solicitors: Barry Nilsson Lawyers (First, Second and Third Defendants) File Number(s): 2018/329329 Judgment – ex tempore 1. By notice of motion filed 12 November 2018 Guohua Liang (the plaintiff) seeks a stay of proceedings in the Appeal Panel of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) which are listed for hearing tomorrow, 14 November 2018. 2. The plaintiff's affidavit affirmed on 12 November 2018 which was filed in support of the motion contains no substantive paragraphs. There is, however, a number of documents annexed to that affidavit, including correspondence between the plaintiff and the Registrar of NCAT. 3. Mr Flecknoe-Brown, who appears on behalf of the University of Technology Sydney, John Colville and Max Hendriks, the defendants, has opposed the stay. He has submitted that, before the plaintiff can appeal to this Court pursuant to s 83 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), it is necessary for there to be a decision of the Appeal Panel of NCAT unless the plaintiff seeks relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). As Mr Flecknoe-Brown says, the plaintiff's right of appeal to the Appeal Panel would be relevant to this Court's discretion to refuse relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act on the grounds that there was a statutory right of appeal. 4. The background to the application is that the plaintiff filed an application in the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT on 13 February 2018. Her application was heard on 12 June 2018 and a decision was made on 14 June 2018 to dismiss her application. It is against that decision that the plaintiff commenced an appeal to the Appeal Panel, which, as referred to above, is listed for hearing on 14 November 2018 and in respect of which she now seeks a stay. 5. The plaintiff has submitted before me that the proceedings before the Appeal Panel would be a waste of both time and money. She is clearly deeply distressed at the prospect of being before the Appeal Panel tomorrow and has pointed to a number of grievances which would not seem to fall within NCAT's jurisdiction. I note that she also wishes to bring a claim in defamation. 6. The points made by Mr Flecknoe-Brown on behalf of the defendants are well made. There is a right of appeal (with leave) from a decision of the Appeal Panel of NCAT to this Court under s 83 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. There is no such statutory appeal from an original decision of NCAT. It is not for this Court to interfere with the operations of NCAT unless there is some plain error of law or a matter which would warrant the exercise of this Court's discretion to grant relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act. 7. While I accept that the plaintiff is deeply distressed at the prospect of the Appeal Panel proceeding, it does not appear to me that there would be any proper grounds on which this Court would grant a stay of these proceedings or that it would ultimately be in the plaintiff's interests were the Court to do so. 8. I note that the plaintiff has already filed a summons in this Court on 8 October 2018 in which she seeks to appeal from the original decision of NCAT made on 14 June 2018. The principal proceedings were the subject of directions made by the registrar when the matter came before him on 6 November 2018. I note that the directions require the plaintiff to provide the defendants with a copy of the proposed amended summons. The plaintiff may be in a better position to formulate an amended summons once the matter has been dealt with to finality by NCAT. 9. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that there is any proper basis to grant a stay of the appeal panel proceedings in NCAT which are listed for hearing tomorrow. Accordingly, the notice of motion is dismissed. 10. At Mr Flecknoe-Brown's request, I reserve the question of the costs of the notice of motion. Orders 1. For the reasons given above, I make the following orders: 1. Dismiss the plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 12 November 2018. 2. Order that costs of the notice of motion be reserved. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 14 November 2018