Setyadi v Khoo [2023] NSWCATAP 185

Setyadi v Khoo [2023] NSWCATAP 185

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed because the appellant did not establish procedural unfairness, did not provide the required transcript or sound recording to support the alleged lack of opportunity to respond, sought to rely on material that was available before the Tribunal hearing or generated after it, and did not show that the Tribunal's conclusions on compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment or the 10% rent reduction were not reasonably open. The dryer replacement issue had no utility because the work had been carried out before the appeal hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in a Residential Tenancy Matter / Appeal From Orders of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division; Leave to Appeal Sought
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['quiet Enjoyment' 'rent Reduction Order' 'repair and Work Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']
['residential Tenancies' 'civil and Administrative Appeals'] ['quiet Enjoyment' 'rent Reduction Order' 'repair and Work Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']

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 a Residential Tenancy Matter / Appeal From Orders of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division; Leave to Appeal Sought

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis that the Tribunal's decision was not fair and equitable or was against the weight of the evidence." 'Whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness in relation to responding to allegations about incorrect claims for rental arrears and the rent ledger.' 'Whether the compensation order for loss of quiet enjoyment was open to the Tribunal.' 'Whether the rent reduction order of 10% from 20 April 2023 to 30 June 2023 was open to the Tribunal.' 'Whether there was utility in appealing the extension of the order requiring replacement of the dryer.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed because the appellant did not establish procedural unfairness, did not provide the required transcript or sound recording to support the alleged lack of opportunity to respond, sought to rely on material that was available before the Tribunal hearing or generated after it, and did not show that the Tribunal's conclusions on compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment or the 10% rent reduction were not reasonably open. The dryer replacement issue had no utility because the work had been carried out before the appeal hearing.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']