Zheng v Kim [2019] NSWCATAP 285

Zheng v Kim [2019] NSWCATAP 285

The appeal was dismissed because the landlord's claim for $550 unpaid rent had already been allowed in her favour, and the Tribunal did not commit discretionary error in refusing an adjournment. The Tribunal's reasons explained the refusal, including its finding that Mr Ding had been authorised to act as the landlord's agent and had received the tenant's material. The landlord had a reasonable opportunity to be heard through that agency, the amount in issue was modest, the access issue was not complex, and the cost and delay of an adjournment would have been disproportionate. The Appeal Panel was not persuaded that insufficient weight was given to the fact that the landlord had not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancy Decision / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'exercise of Discretion' 'reasonable Opportunity to Be Heard' 'restricted Access to Leased Premises' 'unpaid Rent']
['civil Procedure' 'residential Tenancy' 'administrative Law'] ['adjournment' 'exercise of Discretion' 'reasonable Opportunity to Be Heard' 'restricted Access to Leased Premises' 'unpaid Rent']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancy Decision / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal was lodged within time under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW).' 'Whether the landlord was denied the opportunity to claim $550 in unpaid rent from the tenant.' "Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing the landlord an adjournment when she said she had not personally received the tenant's evidence and documents." 'Whether the refusal of the adjournment was affected by insufficient weight being given to a relevant matter or was plainly unreasonable or unjust.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the landlord's claim for $550 unpaid rent had already been allowed in her favour, and the Tribunal did not commit discretionary error in refusing an adjournment. The Tribunal's reasons explained the refusal, including its finding that Mr Ding had been authorised to act as the landlord's agent and had received the tenant's material. The landlord had a reasonable opportunity to be heard through that agency, the amount in issue was modest, the access issue was not complex, and the cost and delay of an adjournment would have been disproportionate. The Appeal Panel was not persuaded that insufficient weight was given to the fact that the landlord had not...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']