Shapkin v Lorenzato [2022] NSWCATCD 67

Shapkin v Lorenzato [2022] NSWCATCD 67

The Tribunal had jurisdiction under the NCAT Act and RT Act to determine the renewal application. The tenant could not rely on an alleged oral order about a key tag because doing so would collaterally attack the Appeal Panel's written orders, although varied order 3 was construed as requiring activation of a key tag within a reasonable time. The landlord activated the key tag at about 1.32 pm on 28 March 2022, which was later than a reasonable time, but the breach was only just over 90 minutes and there was no evidence the tenant tried to enter during that period, so no further order was appropriate. The Tribunal rejected the challenge to the ANZ receipt and accepted that the $1,000...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Renewal Proceedings / Hearing of Renewal Application; Proceedings Dismissed
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
['renewal of Proceedings' 'non Compliance With Tribunal Orders' 'possession Orders' 'occupation Fee' 'abuse of Process' 'photographic and Video Evidence' 'credibility and Reliability of Evidence']
['civil Procedure' 'residential Tenancy'] ['renewal of Proceedings' 'non Compliance With Tribunal Orders' 'possession Orders' 'occupation Fee' 'abuse of Process' 'photographic and Video Evidence' 'credibility and Reliability of Evidence']

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 Renewal Proceedings / Hearing of Renewal Application; Proceedings Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the proceedings.' "Whether the orders which are the subject of the tenant's application include an oral order." 'Whether the landlord failed to comply with varied order 3.' 'Whether, if the landlord failed to comply with varied order 3, any other appropriate order should be made.' 'Whether the landlord failed to comply with varied order 6.' 'Whether, if the landlord failed to comply with varied order 6, any other appropriate order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had jurisdiction under the NCAT Act and RT Act to determine the renewal application. The tenant could not rely on an alleged oral order about a key tag because doing so would collaterally attack the Appeal Panel's written orders, although varied order 3 was construed as requiring activation of a key tag within a reasonable time. The landlord activated the key tag at about 1.32 pm on 28 March 2022, which was later than a reasonable time, but the breach was only just over 90 minutes and there was no evidence the tenant tried to enter during that period, so no further order was appropriate. The Tribunal rejected the challenge to the ANZ receipt and accepted that the $1,000...

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings are dismissed.']