NCAT Appeal Panel dismissed my leave to appeal (had almost two hours of hearing anyhow to arrive to that dismissal). However they did not even consider my "Grounds for Appeal" and yet my barrister is not confident of winning in the Supreme Court and seems to be ignoring what I think is the obvious strength of my case (but IANAL which is why am asking here for opinions please).
The above was in the body of the email where the application was attached (because of Coronavirus email applications were accepted). The actual PDF application referenced the above in the "Grounds of Appeal" (ie section 5): It clearly says "See email body".
But in the hearing the Members only referred to what I wrote in the "Leave to Appeal" (ie section 6) mistakenly calling it my "Grounds of Appeal". Here I summarised the same points but they did not even address this summary properly.
Now I am appealing it in the Supreme Court but my barrister (upon a preliminary examination of the case) is worried there is no question of law upon which to appeal. This flies in the face of guidance from The Law Society which says failing to provide procedural fairness is a question of law.
So that justifies this appeal being granted leave to be heard in the Supreme Court. As to any question of law justifying my leave to appeal (which was rejected) at the NCAT Appeal Panel, you can see from my email that on several points they did not "have any evidence to support a particular factual finding?" (in fact they had actual evidence to the contrary from me which they did not even acknowledge).
The above was in the body of the email where the application was attached (because of Coronavirus email applications were accepted). The actual PDF application referenced the above in the "Grounds of Appeal" (ie section 5): It clearly says "See email body".
But in the hearing the Members only referred to what I wrote in the "Leave to Appeal" (ie section 6) mistakenly calling it my "Grounds of Appeal". Here I summarised the same points but they did not even address this summary properly.
Now I am appealing it in the Supreme Court but my barrister (upon a preliminary examination of the case) is worried there is no question of law upon which to appeal. This flies in the face of guidance from The Law Society which says failing to provide procedural fairness is a question of law.
So that justifies this appeal being granted leave to be heard in the Supreme Court. As to any question of law justifying my leave to appeal (which was rejected) at the NCAT Appeal Panel, you can see from my email that on several points they did not "have any evidence to support a particular factual finding?" (in fact they had actual evidence to the contrary from me which they did not even acknowledge).
