//
[2025] NSWCATAP 277
General information, not legal advice.
NCAT Appeal Panel
2025-10-31
J Ledda, Senior Member
Original judgment source is linked above.
(1) If required, Mr Tao Chen is granted leave under s 45(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) to represent the Respondent in the appeal.
(2) Leave to appeal is refused to the extent leave is required.
(3) The appeal is dismissed.
I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.
Herbert
Zhang [2025] NSWCATAP 277;
Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW (2020) 103 NSWLR 479; [2020] NSWCA 165
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1993] HCA 4; (1993) 176 CLR 344
Bark N Purr Pets Pty Ltd v Moussad [2024] NSWCATAP 201
Boreland v Brewis [2024] NSWCATAP 140
Brahmbhatt v Osorio [2023] NSWCATAP 188
Candy Events Pty Ltd v Thrain Pty Ltd t/as Digital Solutions Group [2025] NSWCATAP 164
Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn (2022) 276 CLR 216; [2022] HCA 16
Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17
Cominos v Di Rico [2016] NSWCATAP 5
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v White [2025] NSWCATAP 30
Damico v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2025] NSWCATAP 109
Donohoe v Albulario [2025] NSWSC 9
FVA v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAP 127
Grabovsky v Department of Communities and Justice [2025] NSWCATAP 192
Hawkins v Wimbledon 1963 Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1465
Houda v Seraphim [2025] NSWCATAP 135
Imbree v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] NSWCATAP 158
McEwan v Port Stephens Council [2022] NSWCATAP 300
Miller v Jennings [1954] HCA 65; (1954) 92 CLR 190
Myers v VCAT [2024] VSCA 206
Narraport Woollahra Holdings Pty Ltd v Ice Box Liquor Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATAP 240
Rushton v St George Community Housing Limited [2025] NSWCATAP 222
Ryan v BKB Motor Vehicle Repairs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 39
Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice v Feeney [2021] NSWCATAP 139
Song v Dickson (No 2) [2025] NSWCATAP 208
The Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Parish [2025] NSWCATAP 180
Trkulja v Markovic [2015] VSCA 298
Ungaro v Matijevic [2025] NSWCATAP 163
Unique Commercial Group Pty Ltd v Cusumano [2024] NSWCATAP 204
Young v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) (2023) 278 CLR 208; [2023] HCA 31
"84 The general principles derived from these cases can be summarised as follows:
(1) In order to be granted leave to appeal, the applicant must demonstrate something more than that the primary decision maker was arguably wrong in the conclusion arrived at or that there was a bona fide challenge to an issue of fact: BHP Billiton Ltd v Dunning [2013] NSWCA 421 at [19] and the authorities cited there, Nakad v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10 at [45];
(2) Ordinarily it is appropriate to grant leave to appeal only in matters that involve:
"It may be difficult for self-represented appellants to clearly express their grounds of appeal. In such circumstances and having regard to the guiding principle, it is appropriate for the Appeal Panel to review an appellant's stated grounds of appeal, the material provided, and the decision of the Tribunal at first instance to examine whether it is possible to discern grounds that may either raise a question of law or a basis for leave to appeal. The Appeal Panel has taken such an approach in a number of cases, for instance, Khan v Kang [2014] NSWCATAP 48 and Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69. However, this must be balanced against the obligation to act fairly and impartially (Bauskis v Liew [2013] NSWCA 297 at [68] citing Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 367 at [309]- [316]). Relevantly, s 38(2) provides that that Tribunal 'may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice'."
"Damages for non-economic loss, sometimes called general damages, are assessed on the basis of prevailing general standards in the community, having regard to the subjective experience of the innocent party arising out of the breach: O'Brien v Dunsdon (1965) 39 ALJR 78; Bonnefin v Hearl (2010). Thus it is necessary to explore the level of distress, anxiety, etc arising for the particular applicant concerned in the light of his or her particular circumstances and personality.
...
General damages are usually assessed by reference to comparative verdicts, that is, by comparison to the sums that other people have received for similar breaches. This approach to the assessment of damages is permissible as long as the comparative verdicts are used as a guide only and the Tribunal takes into account the individual circumstances of the case: Planet Fisheries P/L v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118; Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1993] HCA 31; (1993) 178 CLR 44; Vulin v Cox [2005] ACTCA 22."
(2020) 103 NSWLR 479
(1993) 176 CLR 344
(2022) 276 CLR 216
(1954) 92 CLR 190
(2023) 278 CLR 208
(1990) 170 CLR 321
(1965) 39 ALJR 78
(1968) 119 CLR 118
(1993) 178 CLR 44