2025/00242573
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 29/8/25 | Applicant/Cross-Respondent | Draft Notice of Appeal (PDF, 991.1 KB) |
| 29/8/25 | Applicant/Cross-Respondent | Summary of Argument (PDF, 1.5 MB) |
| 29/8/25 | Applicant/Cross-Respondent | Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal (PDF, 734.4 KB) |
| 12/9/25 | Respondent/Cross-Appellant | Summary of Argument (PDF, 3.0 MB) |
| 17/10/25 | Respondent/Cross-Appellant | Notice of Cross-Appeal (PDF, 1.1 MB) |
| 17/10/25 | Respondent/Cross-Appellant | Response to Application for Leave to Appeal (PDF, 3.2 MB) |
| 28/10/25 | Applicant/Cross-Respondent | Response to Application for Leave to Appeal (PDF, 1.5 MB) |
| 15/12/25 | Respondent/Cross-Appellant | Summary of Argument (PDF, 3.0 MB) |
| 17/12/25 | Applicant/Cross-Respondent | Supplementary Submissions (PDF, 1.4 MB) |
| 5/2/26 | Applicant/Cross-Respondent | Response to Respondent's Summary of Argument (PDF, 1.9 MB) |
| 5/2/26 | Respondent/Cross-Appellant | Response to Applicant's Submissions (PDF, 3.0 MB) |
| 5/3/26 | Applicant/Cross-Respondent | Reply (PDF, 3.2 MB) |
| 10/3/26 | Respondent/Cross-Appellant | Reply (PDF, 1.5 MB) |
| 11/3/26 | Applicant/Cross-Respondent | Certification for Publication (PDF, 216.6 KB) |
CONTRACTS – this is an application for leave brought under s 127(2)(c) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) appealing the order of a public apology under ss 237 and 243 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW) (ACL) by Abadee DCJ. Leave is required because the final judgment only concerned an award of nominal damages and an order of apology, which were below the value of $100,000. The respondent has filed a Cross-Summons seeking leave to appeal from the separate costs decision (which requires leave under s 127(2)(b)). The dispute relates to claims brought by the estate of the late Betty Wai Yee Chan, a resident at the Donald Coburn Centre (an aged care facility), for mistreatment of Betty during her stay at the Centre under both contract and the ACL. The primary judge found in favour of the applicant for its claims for: (i) breach of contract resulting from the Centre's failure to provide a supplement and failure to call a general practitioner after Betty observed purple-coloured urine; and (ii) breach of the ACL resulting from the failure to provide an alternating pressure air mattress, as well as the same claims arising under contract. Although awarding nominal damages, his Honour refused to order an apology. The applicant argues that the primary judge erred in holding that the applicant lacks standing to seek an apology, is not a consumer under the ACL, cannot be awarded a public apology as an individual litigant, and did not suffer loss or damage. The respondent argues that the appeal is manifestly hopeless because no loss or damage was established at trial (and is therefore hypothetical only) and because great expense has been incurred (disproportionate to the nominal damages awarded). The application raises confined questions of statutory construction relating to whether an executor of an estate may bring an action under the ACL where it was the deceased who suffered loss or damage. The respondent's cross-appeal argues that the primary judge erroneously awarded costs to the applicant because, inter alia, (i) most claims brought by the applicant were rejected, (ii) the only remaining claim by the end of the hearing was for breach of contract, and (iii) the applicant was only awarded nominal damages.
Last updated: