CTTT File No: RT 10/56631

TO: Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal NSW


I, Joe Stojsic, and my Mother Ana Stojsic object to the Applicant Linda Chui and her partner Robert Zurawski having legal representation at the hearing on Tuesday 22 February 2011. Furthermore I would have objected in the first instance to the represntation (in the form of Martin Barker from Marrickville Legal Centre) at the hearing on 15 December 2010 regarding the lockout but the Member did not give me the opportunity to object (which I undertand means the Member did not follow due procedure).

Such legal representation puts me and my mother at a disadvantage because I am an out of work musician and my mother is a 73 year old pensioner who has worked her entire life as a factory and process worker. Linda on the other hand is a full time office clerk (with Golden Leaf Uniforms) who has studied real estate at TAFE and her partner Richard Zurawski (aka RObert Zurawski) is a professor in Electronic Engineering that freelances giving lectures in English around the world and has been published by Taylor and Francis (http://www.angusrobertson.com.au/book/embedded-systems-handbook-2-volume-set/1012875/ and http://www.angusrobertson.com.au/book/the-industrial-communication-technology-handbook/848340/).


I object to Member McIlhatton presiding over the hearing on 22 February 2011 because she denied me natural justice in the 15 December 2010 hearing on the following points:
  1. She did not follow due procedure regarding Applicant's legal representation (as outlined above).
  2. She did not follow due procedure in establishing the Tribunal's jursidiction at the outset.
  3. She showed bias and pre-judgement of the outcome by calling the Applicant tenant all the way through the hearing before she was deemed so and even when she was asking me to explain why I thought the Applicant is a lodger she called the Applicant a tenant THREE times in a row.
  4. She interrupted me throughout, forcing me to backtrack a little each time using the same words after her interuption. So she saw each time that I was saying nothing objectionable yet not once did she apologise for those intimidating interuptions.
  5. Linda's representative Martin was allowed to interrupt the Member throughout (while I did not do so even once).
  6. She squeezed the hearing into a thirty minute timeslot (she had another hearing coming up).

Joe Stojsic

Ana Stojsic