Qin v Billings [2015] NSWCATAP 105

Qin v Billings [2015] NSWCATAP 105

The company was wrongly joined because it was not the proprietor and had no potential liability in an occupancy principles dispute. The Tribunal also made a significant factual error in calculating the security deposit as $4,800 rather than $2,400 and therefore awarded $8,900 instead of the correct total of $4,700, causing a substantial miscarriage of justice. The bias grounds, the challenge to the condition finding, the asserted new evidence, and the costs application were not made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in Residential Proceedings Concerning Orders Under the Boarding Houses Act 2012 (nsw) / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From the Consumer and Commercial Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; time extended, leave granted on the significant factual error, joinder and money orders set aside, substituted monetary orders made, and costs refused.
Legal Topics
['occupancy Principles Dispute' 'security Deposit and Occupancy Fee Refund' 'joinder of Party' 'extension of Time for Appeal' 'leave to Appeal on Grounds Other Than a Question of Law' 'actual and Apprehended Bias' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'costs in Ncat']
['administrative Law' 'boarding Houses' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['occupancy Principles Dispute' 'security Deposit and Occupancy Fee Refund' 'joinder of Party' 'extension of Time for Appeal' 'leave to Appeal on Grounds Other Than a Question of Law' 'actual and Apprehended Bias' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'costs in Ncat']

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 Proceedings Concerning Orders Under the Boarding Houses Act 2012 (nsw) / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal From the Consumer and Commercial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time for lodgement of the appeal should be extended.' 'Whether Xin and Qin Pty Ltd was wrongly joined as a respondent and subjected to a money order.' 'Whether the Tribunal was actually or apparently biased.' 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal on grounds other than a question of law because of an incorrect finding about the amount of the security deposit paid.' "Whether the Tribunal's finding concerning the condition of the premises warranted leave to appeal." 'Whether asserted new evidence justified leave to appeal.' 'Whether special circumstances warranted a costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The company was wrongly joined because it was not the proprietor and had no potential liability in an occupancy principles dispute. The Tribunal also made a significant factual error in calculating the security deposit as $4,800 rather than $2,400 and therefore awarded $8,900 instead of the correct total of $4,700, causing a substantial miscarriage of justice. The bias grounds, the challenge to the condition finding, the asserted new evidence, and the costs application were not made out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; time extended, leave granted on the significant factual error, joinder and money orders set aside, substituted monetary orders made, and costs refused.

Orders

  • ['The time for the lodgement of the appeal is extended to 24 December 2014.' 'Leave is granted for Mr Qin to appeal on grounds other than a question of law.' 'The order of the Tribunal made on 9 October 2014 to join Xin and Qin Pty Ltd as a respondent to the application is set aside.' 'The order of the Tribunal made...