A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.


Wednesday, 15 October 2014
Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
Sundollar Pty Ltd v Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW (NSWSC) - judicial review - no denial of procedural fairness in CTTT decision
Gurney v Hobart City Council (TASFC) - real property - planning and development - conditional planning permit issued by Council - appeal dismissed
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
Sundollar Pty Ltd v Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW [2014] NSWSC 138
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Hidden J
Judicial review - Sundollar conducted business constructing swimming pools - Sundollar entered contract with second defendant to build pool - second defendant sought compensation in Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal from Sundollar for alleged defects in construction - Tribunal delivered decision in favour of second defendant - Sundollar sought to quash decision on basis of denial of procedural fairness - held: ground for relief not established on basis of member’s “defects assurance” observation - even if ground had been made out, relief should be refused in exercise of discretion because asserted procedural unfairness did not affect outcome - ground for relief not established on basis that Tribunal permitted second defendant’s partner and another person to participate as advocates, effectively representing second defendant - way in which matter proceeded unconventional but both parties had full opportunity to present their case - summons dismissed.
Sundollar Pty Ltd
Gurney v Hobart City Council [2014] TASFC 9
Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania
Tennent, Porter & Wood JJ
Real property - Council refused application for planning permit for subdivision - property owner appealed - Resource Management Planning and Appeal Tribunal Council directed Council to issue conditional planning permit - appellant opposed grant of the planning permit - appellant argued plan sealed by Council was not in accordance with planning permit issued and subdivision was irregular - appellant unsuccessful before single judge - held: Chief Justice did not address appellant's pleaded claim and erred in the way he approached claim - Chief Justice found appellant failed to establish there was anything in documents to which Tribunal had regard which could satisfy him that Tribunal's decision had required terms of any easement granted in Council's favour to contain a power to permit public to pass over right of way - appellant's pleaded claim did not assert there was any such material or that there should have been a right of way with such a power - appellant's pleading focussed on what Right-of-Way meant in permit - however even addressing appellant's claim as pleaded, it must fail - appeal dismissed.