I picked up some business cards for JJJ Concreting (Jason Semaan) at the Concreters Warehouse and passed them onto Y & M Glinka.
As I have no concreting experience I advised Y & M Glinka to seek recommendations from the customers of whomever they choose to do the concreting and deal with them direct.
My quotation was to Spray a Pattern onto their driveway, re-concreted or not this was the only job that was completed for Mr & Mrs Glinka by my company in 2004, Best Home Improvements.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0405 582 670."
36 The letter provided an outline of the matters on which he relied. Mr Hutchings did not seem to understand that he was required to provide more detailed material and corroborate it. It was not up to the Chairperson or his delegate to seek it. Granting a re-hearing is a major step. By Notice of Order dated 4 June 2007 Mr Hutchings was advised that his application for a rehearing was not granted as the delegate of the Chairperson was not satisfied that the applicant may have suffered a substantial injustice. The following written reasons were given:
"1. It was clear that the hearing had not been adjourned and that Mr Hutchings was to provide further information to enable his request to be considered.
2. He had not provided any material in compliance with case-management directions.
3. The re-hearing does not suggest any defence.
4. There is still no corroboration of the medical appointment said to prevent attendance at the hearing."
37 The delegate of the Chairperson would have had access to the CTTT's file. The letter of 11 May 2007 from the Tribunal faxed to Mr Hutchings that day stated that the hearing on 14 May 2007 had not been adjourned and the file note of the Registrar indicated that Mr Hutchings had been told by her that his FAX would be dealt with on Monday 14 May 2007. Mr Hutchings was seeking to reverse the decision refusing the adjournment. He seemed to think that if he told the Registrar he had a doctor's appointment and subsequently produced evidence that he had attended that appointment that would suffice. He seemed to think that his assertion was sufficient. The delegate was entitled to be sceptical that the appointment could not be re-scheduled at a relatively early time if the reasons for the cancellation were made known.
38 Proceedings were instituted in this Court in a timely way. At the hearing before me on 13 February 2008 counsel for Mr Hutchings conceded, correctly, that the material before the Tribunal on 14 May 2007 was sufficient for it to make the orders which it ultimately made. Mr Hutchings also led material which, if accepted, indicated that he had a defence upon the merits. Mr Hutchings' complaint was that there had been a lack of procedural fairness.
39 The hearing could not proceed to a conclusion on 13 February 2008 because neither the transcript of proceedings on 14 May 2007 before the Tribunal member nor the Tribunal files were before this Court and I indicated that I could not and would not make a finding of a denial of procedural fairness against a Tribunal member without these. They were subsequently procured, with difficulty and delay, by Mr Hutchings' solicitor. He was not responsible for the delay. The transcript and the files were tendered by Mr Hutchings and admitted in evidence.
40 Counsel for Mr Hutchings referred to s 28 of the CTTT Act 2001. The CTTT is not bound by the rules of evidence and may enquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of procedural fairness (subs (2)). It is to act with as little formality as the circumstances permit and without regard to technicalities or legal forms (subs (3)). The Tribunal is to act as expeditiously as possible.
41 Under s 35 the Tribunal must ensure that each party in any proceedings is given a reasonable opportunity: