Fordham v Davies [2014] NSWCATAP 60

Fordham v Davies [2014] NSWCATAP 60

The appeal was allowed only in relation to the painting component of the repairs claim because the Tribunal had not made the necessary finding as to which ingoing inspection report was preferred, leaving no sufficient nexus for that component under s 166(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). The other grounds failed because the alleged time point lacked substance, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to find an offence under s 165, the reasons for the pool and remote claims were adequate, there was some evidence supporting the findings, and the tenants did not satisfy the statutory or discretionary requirements for leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Concerning Return of Residential Tenancy Rental Bond / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision
Outcome
The appeal is allowed in part. The claim for painting for $1652 is remitted back to Member B Howe for reconsideration without further evidence. The decision under review is otherwise confirmed.
Legal Topics
['civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeals' 'question of Law' 'leave to Appeal' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'rental Bond Claims' 'condition Reports' 'new Evidence']
['administrative Law' 'residential Tenancy Law'] ['civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeals' 'question of Law' 'leave to Appeal' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'rental Bond Claims' 'condition Reports' 'new Evidence']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal Concerning Return of Residential Tenancy Rental Bond / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the landlords' Tribunal application concerning the rental bond was out of time." "Whether an alleged breach of s 165 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) affected the Tribunal's determination or required the Tribunal to find an offence." "Whether the Tribunal's reasons for allowing the pool service, remote replacement and repairs claims were adequate under s 62 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)." 'Whether the tenants established a question of law or grounds for leave to appeal based on weight of evidence, asserted miscarriage of justice, unfairness or new evidence.' 'Whether the repairs claim, particularly painting, had the necessary evidentiary nexus to the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy under s 166(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed only in relation to the painting component of the repairs claim because the Tribunal had not made the necessary finding as to which ingoing inspection report was preferred, leaving no sufficient nexus for that component under s 166(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). The other grounds failed because the alleged time point lacked substance, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to find an offence under s 165, the reasons for the pool and remote claims were adequate, there was some evidence supporting the findings, and the tenants did not satisfy the statutory or discretionary requirements for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

The appeal is allowed in part. The claim for painting for $1652 is remitted back to Member B Howe for reconsideration without further evidence. The decision under review is otherwise confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed in part.' 'The claim for painting for $1652 is remitted back to Member B Howe for reconsideration without further evidence, pursuant to s 81(1)(e) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.' 'The decision under review is otherwise confirmed.']