Hills v Djordjevic [2014] NSWCATAP 75

Hills v Djordjevic [2014] NSWCATAP 75

Both appeals were dismissed because the notices of appeal identified no question of law and the Appeal Panel found no flaw in the Tribunal's reasoning. The rent abatement claim was precluded by the earlier rent determination or, alternatively, failed because the mould was found to have been caused by the appellant's breach so rent did not abate under section 43(2)(a). The bond appeal failed because the landlord had incurred the sheriff and locksmith fees, no reason was shown why they should not be paid from the bond, and the overpaid rent was to be repaid separately.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeals in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers
Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['rent Abatement' 'return of Bond' 'mould in Residential Premises' 'sheriff Fees and Locksmith Fees' 'appeal From Tribunal Orders']
['residential Tenancy Law' 'administrative Law'] ['rent Abatement' 'return of Bond' 'mould in Residential Premises' 'sheriff Fees and Locksmith Fees' 'appeal From Tribunal Orders']

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

Appeals in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel Determination on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appellant's application for abatement of rent under s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2010 and reimbursement of the cost of a shower head." 'Whether the appellant was entitled to return of the whole bond or whether the landlord was entitled to payment from the bond for sheriff fees and locksmith fees.' 'Whether either notice of appeal identified a question of law or disclosed a flaw justifying a merits rehearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Both appeals were dismissed because the notices of appeal identified no question of law and the Appeal Panel found no flaw in the Tribunal's reasoning. The rent abatement claim was precluded by the earlier rent determination or, alternatively, failed because the mould was found to have been caused by the appellant's breach so rent did not abate under section 43(2)(a). The bond appeal failed because the landlord had incurred the sheriff and locksmith fees, no reason was shown why they should not be paid from the bond, and the overpaid rent was to be repaid separately.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ['That the appeal against the order made on 20 February 2014 in matter RT 13/63639 be dismissed.' 'That the appeal against the order made on 19 June 2014 in matter RT 14/19817 be dismissed.']