Saleem v A1 Auto Transporter Pty Ltd trading as A1 Auto Transporter [2026] NSWCATAP 72 | Case summary

For the reasons above, we are not satisfied that there was a substantial miscarriage of justice or that there was an injustice which is reasonably clear warranting leave. We refuse leave to appeal.
We make the following orders:

(1) Leave to appeal is refused.

(2) 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.

NCAT Appeal Panel|2026-03-11|Before: J Redfern PSM, Senior MemberM Tyson, Senior Member

For the reasons above, we are not satisfied that there was a substantial miscarriage of justice or that there was an injustice which is reasonably clear warranting leave. We refuse leave to appeal.
We make the following orders:

(1) Leave to appeal is refused.

(2) 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.

Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014

Section 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act) provides that a party may appeal the decision of the Tribunal at first instance as of right, on any question of law, or with the leave of the Appeal Panel on any other grounds.
In John Prendergast & Vanessa Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69 (Prendergast) the Appeal Panel considered what constitutes a question of law and formulated a non-exhaustive list of those matters at [13] including whether the Tribunal identified the wrong issue or asked the wrong question, whether a wrong principle of law had been applied, whether there was a failure to afford procedural fairness, whether there was no evidence to support a finding of fact and whether the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker would make it.
This was revisited in Unique Commercial Group Pty Ltd v Cusumano [2024] NSWCATAP 204 (Unique) at [25]-[40] esp at [30]-[32], where the Appeal Panel found that Prendergast was "overly reductive" [31] and identified, together with the authorities there cited at [32], further questions of law such as: whether the Tribunal drew inferences that were not available from the facts found; whether the decision was vitiated by bias, or a reasonable apprehension of bias, raising a procedural fairness question, and whether the Tribunal failed to respond to substantial, clearly articulated arguments based on established facts which may constitute a failure to accord natural justice or, alternatively, a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction.
Where a party is self-represented and that party's material and submissions raise a question of law in substance, a more generous approach is warranted as an aspect of ensuring procedural fairness, even though the ground has not been raised expressly or with precision: Unique at [27]-[28] and Cominos v Di Rico [2016] NSWCATAP 5 at [13].
If a party does not raise a question of law, the party must seek, and be given, leave to appeal from a decision of the Tribunal at first instance.
The circumstances in which the Appeal Panel may grant leave to appeal under s 80(2)(b) from decisions made in the Consumer and Commercial Division are limited to those set out in cl 12(1) of Sch 4 to the NCAT Act. In such cases, the Appeal Panel must be satisfied that the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice on the basis that:

In Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 (Collins), the Appeal Panel stated at [76] that a substantial miscarriage of justice for the purposes of cl 12(1) of Schedule 4 may have been suffered where:

In summary, an internal appeal is not an opportunity for the losing party to rerun the party's case, save in narrow circumstances none of which are relevant for present purposes: Ryan v BKB Motor Vehicle Repairs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 39 at [10]. Any appeal must be on a question of law, or with the leave of the Appeal Panel, on other grounds. If there is no question of law, appeals against a decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division must first meet the 'gateway' in 12(1) of Sch 4 of the NCAT Act and, if so, the Appeal Panel must then consider whether to exercise discretion to grant leave having regard to the principles outlined in Collins.

Saleem v A1 Auto Transporter Pty Ltd trading as A1 Auto Transporter

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (3 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (3)