Smith v Li [2020] NSWCATAP 59

Smith v Li [2020] NSWCATAP 59

The extension of time for RT19/52270 was refused because the 44-day delay was significant and inadequately explained, the landlords would be prejudiced, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects: the Tribunal had power to make the 10 December 2019 consent orders and there was no breach of procedural fairness where the tenants had an opportunity to raise retaliatory eviction before the Member but consented to the orders. The extension of time for RT20/00547 was granted and the appeal allowed because the delay was only one day and the Tribunal erred in law by purporting on 22 January 2020 to terminate a residential tenancy agreement that had already been terminated on 10 December...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Appeal / Appeal Panel Hearing of Applications for Extension of Time and Appeals From Consent Orders Made in RT 19/52270 and RT 20/00547
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused and appeal dismissed for RT 19/52270; time extended, appeal allowed, and orders 1, 2, 3 and 4 set aside for RT 20/00547.
Legal Topics
['consent Orders' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'order for Possession' 'procedural Fairness' 'retaliatory Eviction' 'jurisdiction']
['residential Tenancy Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['consent Orders' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'order for Possession' 'procedural Fairness' 'retaliatory Eviction' 'jurisdiction']

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

Residential Tenancy Appeal / Appeal Panel Hearing of Applications for Extension of Time and Appeals From Consent Orders Made in RT 19/52270 and RT 20/00547

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applications for extension of time should be granted for appeals from RT 19/52270 and RT 20/00547.' "Whether the Tribunal had power to make the consent orders dated 10 December 2019 despite errors in the landlords' application." 'Whether the appellants were denied procedural fairness because they raised retaliatory eviction during conciliation.' 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction on 22 January 2020 to terminate a residential tenancy agreement that had already been terminated on 10 December 2019.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time for RT19/52270 was refused because the 44-day delay was significant and inadequately explained, the landlords would be prejudiced, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects: the Tribunal had power to make the 10 December 2019 consent orders and there was no breach of procedural fairness where the tenants had an opportunity to raise retaliatory eviction before the Member but consented to the orders. The extension of time for RT20/00547 was granted and the appeal allowed because the delay was only one day and the Tribunal erred in law by purporting on 22 January 2020 to terminate a residential tenancy agreement that had already been terminated on 10 December...

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused and appeal dismissed for RT 19/52270; time extended, appeal allowed, and orders 1, 2, 3 and 4 set aside for RT 20/00547.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time in which to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'The time for filing the notice of appeal is extended to 6 February 2020.' 'The appeal is allowed.' 'Orders 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the consent orders made by the Tribunal dated 22 January 2020 are set aside.']