Young v Bannister [2023] NSWCATAP 1

Young v Bannister [2023] NSWCATAP 1

The first instance Tribunal erred on a question of law by allowing the tenant's $1,000 sliding back door claim twice; the second allowance failed to consider that the claim had already been allowed and no reasonable decision-maker would allow the same claim twice. No procedural unfairness, actual bias, apprehended bias or insufficiency of reasons was established. After extending time and accounting for the amended orders and the rental bond paid to the landlord, the proper net order was that the landlord pay the tenant $6,808.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) Concerning Residential Tenancy Compensation Applications / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Time extended; appeal allowed; first instance orders set aside and substituted with an order that the appellant landlord pay the respondent tenant $6,808 forthwith.
Legal Topics
['internal Appeal' 'question of Law' 'procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias' 'reasons for Decision' 'correction of Duplicated Award' 'rental Bond']
['administrative Law' 'residential Tenancy Law'] ['internal Appeal' 'question of Law' 'procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias' 'reasons for Decision' 'correction of Duplicated Award' 'rental Bond']

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 Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw) Concerning Residential Tenancy Compensation Applications / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Notice of Appeal should be accepted out of time.' 'Whether the Tribunal at first instance made an error on a question of law by duplicating an award of $1,000 for the sliding back door claim.' 'Whether the hearing at first instance was unfair or affected by actual or apprehended bias.' 'Whether the reasons at first instance were insufficient because they did not deal with every matter raised.' 'What order should be made after taking account of the amended orders and the rental bond paid to the landlord.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first instance Tribunal erred on a question of law by allowing the tenant's $1,000 sliding back door claim twice; the second allowance failed to consider that the claim had already been allowed and no reasonable decision-maker would allow the same claim twice. No procedural unfairness, actual bias, apprehended bias or insufficiency of reasons was established. After extending time and accounting for the amended orders and the rental bond paid to the landlord, the proper net order was that the landlord pay the tenant $6,808.

Court Disposition

Time extended; appeal allowed; first instance orders set aside and substituted with an order that the appellant landlord pay the respondent tenant $6,808 forthwith.

Orders

  • ['The time for lodging the Notice of Appeal is extended to 13 October 2022.' 'The appeal is allowed.' 'The orders made on 22 September 2022 and amended on 20 October 2022 are set aside.' 'In lieu thereof the following order is made.' 'The appellant (landlord) is to pay the respondent (tenant) $6,808 forthwith.']