Tanious v NSW Land and Housing Corporation (No 2)

THE COURT: On 7 March 2016, this Court dismissed Mr Tanious’ application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Appeal Panel of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), itself dismissing an appeal on a question of law from a first instance decision of NCAT constituted by a general member which ordered the removal of some metal shutters which had been installed in the premises owned by the respondent and rented by Mr Tanious: Tanious v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2017] NSWCA 43.

Following that decision, Mr Tanious filed a motion on 20 March 2017 which was made returnable today. The motion, which has the hallmarks of being prepared by Mr Tanious unassisted by a lawyer, seeks the following orders:

The application is supported by written submissions which commence with a reference in general terms to the principles of natural justice. Without intending to convey any disrespect, it is difficult to understand the balance of the submissions. For example, paragraph 2 is as follows:

Doing the best we can, paragraphs 3-6 include statements that there was no evidence for the decision, that the respondent’s officers have confirmed that it was his responsibility to install a new shutter, and had visited briefly last month without looking at fan ventilation or extra lighting, and that some six years ago permission was granted to Mr Tanious to lay pavers.

Those written submissions were reiterated orally by Mr Tanious this morning. He indicated that paragraph 2, which is reproduced above, was his “main issue” with this Court’s decision earlier this month. But paragraph 9 on page 6 of this Court’s reasons in its earlier decision merely records the reasons given by the Appeal Panel of NCAT and is not any part of the dispositive reasoning of this Court.

In order to be constructive, we observe that, to the extent that Mr Tanious may be concerned that he cannot comply with the NCAT order without first obtaining written permission from the respondent, that concern is misplaced. The order was sought by the respondent, and obliges him to comply with it. No further permission is required. For an abundance of caution, in light of the oral submissions made by Mr Tanious, the Court confirms that the order of NCAT requiring removal of the shutter should be complied with without delay. Nothing that has been said is intended to qualify that obligation upon Mr Tanious in any way.

We have treated the application as being made under UCPR r 36.16. Nothing Mr Tanious has written or said discloses anything which bears upon the discretion to reopen this Court’s decision refusing leave. The notice of motion filed 20 March 2017 will be dismissed.

The order of the Court is that the notice of motion of 20 March 2017 is dismissed.