Clark v Callil [2017] NSWCATAP 229

Clark v Callil [2017] NSWCATAP 229

The Appeal Panel held that there was no denial of procedural fairness because the Member considered the late provision of the tenant's documents, satisfied herself that they were largely the same as documents already provided by the landlord, and the landlord's agent had access to them when preparing the landlord's case. The landlord did not show that the findings on building works, rent reduction, bathroom amenity, or blinds were against the weight of evidence, nor that any new evidence was significant new evidence not reasonably available at the first instance hearing. Accordingly, no error of law or possible substantial miscarriage of justice was established, so leave to appeal was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel Review of Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 20 July 2017
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['compensation for Failure to Repair' 'rent Reduction' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'significant New Evidence']
['residential Tenancies' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeals'] ['compensation for Failure to Repair' 'rent Reduction' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'significant 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 in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel Review of Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 20 July 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal at first instance denied the landlord procedural fairness by allowing the tenant to rely on documents provided at the hearing and proceeding with the hearing.' 'Whether the Member erred in finding that the tenant was not informed of the serious building works and in reducing rent for loss of amenity.' 'Whether the compensation awarded for failure to repair or replace blinds was excessive or against the weight of evidence.' 'Whether the landlord should be granted leave to appeal on the basis that the decision was not fair and equitable, was against the weight of evidence, or significant new evidence had arisen.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that there was no denial of procedural fairness because the Member considered the late provision of the tenant's documents, satisfied herself that they were largely the same as documents already provided by the landlord, and the landlord's agent had access to them when preparing the landlord's case. The landlord did not show that the findings on building works, rent reduction, bathroom amenity, or blinds were against the weight of evidence, nor that any new evidence was significant new evidence not reasonably available at the first instance hearing. Accordingly, no error of law or possible substantial miscarriage of justice was established, so leave to appeal was...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']