Hinterland Outdoors Pty Ltd v Bryan Walters and Joan Walters

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an appeal against orders of the Tribunal in its Consumer and Commercial Division made on 2 February 2016 in the following terms: 1. Hinterland Outdoors Pty Ltd trading as Hinterland Caravans Morisset, 12 Gateway Boulevarde, Morrisset NSW 2264, is to pay Bryan Walters and Joan Walters, 46 Hunter Street, Hinton NSW 2321, the sum of $69,439.75 on or before 1 March 2016. Reasons

• $64,500.00 Damages for breach of consumer guarantee as to fitness for purpose and for misleading representation about tare weight of caravan.
• $4,939.75 Costs of expert report and costs of expert's attendance at Tribunal. 1. Following the payment of the $69,439.75 Bryan Walters & Joan Walters are to deliver the Atlantic caravan and signed registration papers transferring ownership of the caravan to Hinterland Outdoors Pty Ltd trading as Hinterland Caravans Morisset to 12 Gateway Boulevarde Morisset NSW 2321, within 7 days of receiving the payment. The property in the caravan will then pass to Hinterland Outdoors Pty Ltd trading as Hinterland Caravans Morisset and they may deal with the caravan in any manner they deem fit. 2. If Order 2 is not complied with, either party is granted leave to renew the application by 01 Feb 2016.

1. The foregoing is the entirety of the reasons provided by the Tribunal. No request pursuant to s62 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act) for a written statement of the reasons of the Tribunal was made by either party.
2. The adequacy of reasons in decisions of this Tribunal at first instance was considered in Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 at [43] to [64]. We note in particular what was said at [49]: "One reason why reasons are generally required, notwithstanding a provision such as s62, is that if reasons for decision are neither sought nor prepared and an appeal or application for leave to appeal is lodged, the findings of fact and legal reasoning of the decision maker at first instance would not be available to the appellate body by way of written reasons. In many instances not having findings of fact and legal reasoning explicitly available may render effectively worthless any appeal right because the appellate body does not have a statement of the findings of fact, the relevant law and explanation of how the law was applied to the facts as found, by the decision maker at first instance." And at [53]: "The other basis upon which it has been held that reasons are generally required to be given was recently reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Keith v Gal [2013] NSWCA 339 (per Gleeson JA at [109]) as being that failure to provide sufficient reasons promotes 'a sense of grievance' and denies 'both the fact and the appearance of justice having been done', thus working a miscarriage of justice, citing Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 at 729: Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 at 442 per Meagher JA…"