Raju v Sharma [2016] NSWCATAP 207

Raju v Sharma [2016] NSWCATAP 207

The tenant did not raise any question of law and the challenged refusal to adjourn was an interlocutory decision requiring leave. Leave was refused because, even assuming the adjournment application had been made, no error or substantial miscarriage of justice was shown: the applications had been listed for hearing after directions for evidence, the tenant had not filed a statement from Mr Dayaram, the Tribunal considered the version of the residential tenancy agreement relied on by the tenant, and that agreement marked the garage, driveway or parking space as "N/A", so Mr Dayaram's evidence about another version of the agreement would not have altered the relevant finding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Residential Tenancy Applications / Appeal Panel Determination of Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Decision' 'adjournment' 'fresh Evidence' 'residential Tenancy Agreement' 'rental Arrears' 'compensation for Loss of Amenity']
['administrative Law' 'residential Tenancy Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Decision' 'adjournment' 'fresh Evidence' 'residential Tenancy Agreement' 'rental Arrears' 'compensation for Loss of Amenity']

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 From a Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Residential Tenancy Applications / Appeal Panel Determination of Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the tenant raised any error of law permitting an appeal as of right.' "Whether leave to appeal from the Tribunal's refusal to adjourn should be granted." 'Whether the refusal to adjourn to allow later evidence from Mr Dayaram caused a substantial miscarriage of justice.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in ordering rental arrears and in its treatment of compensation relating to use of the driveway, carport or garage.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tenant did not raise any question of law and the challenged refusal to adjourn was an interlocutory decision requiring leave. Leave was refused because, even assuming the adjournment application had been made, no error or substantial miscarriage of justice was shown: the applications had been listed for hearing after directions for evidence, the tenant had not filed a statement from Mr Dayaram, the Tribunal considered the version of the residential tenancy agreement relied on by the tenant, and that agreement marked the garage, driveway or parking space as "N/A", so Mr Dayaram's evidence about another version of the agreement would not have altered the relevant finding.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

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