Applying the Statutory Framework-Appealable Decision/ Leave to Appeal
- In considering the above provisions, the first matter to be addressed is whether the decision to refuse the set aside application is one over which the Tribunal has "internal appeal jurisdiction".
- If the answer to this is yes, the next question is whether the appellant requires leave to appeal.
- These issues were recently considered, by the Appeal Panel of the Tribunal in Hammond v Ozzy's Cheapest Cars Pty Ltd (published 8 April 2015). At page 6 of that decision the Appeal Panel states:
"A decision to set aside an original decision under cl 9 of the Regulation should be seen as being made in the same proceedings as the proceedings in which the original decision was made. Consequently, in the present case, the set aside decision ….. should be taken to be a "decision made ... in proceedings for a general decision" within s 32(1) and, thus, an "internally appealable decision" within the meaning of s 32(4)"
- The Appeal Panel went on to consider whether a set aside decision should be characterised as an" interlocutory" decision under s 80(2)(a) of the Act or an "ancillary" decision under s 80(2)(b) of the Act and concluded:
"a decision on a set aside application is not a decision concerning an "interlocutory issue" in proceedings before the Tribunal for the purposes of the definition of "interlocutory decision". On this basis, it should be concluded that a set aside decision is not an interlocutory decision….
Further, the definition of "ancillary decision" in s 4(1) of the Act includes "a decision ... consequential on ... a decision determining proceedings". Since a set aside application under cl 9 can only be made after, and in respect of, a decision that determines proceedings, a set aside decision naturally falls within the description of a decision consequential on a decision determining proceedings.
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel is of the view that the set aside decision ….. was an ancillary decision for the purposes of s 80(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, in so far as the grounds of appeal relied on by the appellants raise questions of law, leave to appeal is not required".
- We have considered carefully the reasoning of the Appeal Panel and in light of those reasons and the overriding consideration to ensure comity and consistency in decision-making we accept the conclusions reached by the Appeal Panel.
- Accordingly we find that in the present proceedings the set aside application is an ancillary decision within the meaning of s 80(2)(b) of the Act and that other than where the appellant raises questions of law, leave to appeal is required.
- Although the Notice of Appeal refers to a number of matters, these all relate to a denial of procedural fairness. Denial of procedural fairness raises a question of law (John v Prendergast & Vanessa Prendergast v Western Irrigation Ltd (2014) NSWCATAP 69 at (13) which as already noted does not require the appellant to seek leave.
- Even if leave were required, then, having considered the parameters of s 80(2)(b) of the Act and cl12 Sch 4 of the Act, we are of the view the appellant should succeed for the reasons given below.