Raslan v Pan [2015] NSWCATAP 12

Raslan v Pan [2015] NSWCATAP 12

The appeal and application for leave failed because the Notice of Rent Increase was found to have been served by hand delivery to the appellants' letterbox on 30 October 2013; s 223 did not require proof of actual receipt; the appellants had an opportunity to question the agent and suffered no practical injustice from the conduct of the hearing or the emails; the Tribunal made no error of law by not considering an extension of time when no extension application was made; and the Appeal Panel was not satisfied that any substantial miscarriage of justice occurred or that the rent increase was excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancies Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Before the Appeal Panel
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the appeal was otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['rent Increase Alleged to Be Excessive' 'service of Notice of Rent Increase' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'cross Examination' 'leave to Appeal']
['residential Tenancies' 'administrative Law'] ['rent Increase Alleged to Be Excessive' 'service of Notice of Rent Increase' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'cross Examination' 'leave to Appeal']

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 Tenancies Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Before the Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent landlords' agent owed a duty of care under s 223 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) to ensure the Notice of Rent Increase was actually received." "Whether the appellants were denied procedural fairness because they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the respondents' agent." 'Whether the appellants were denied procedural fairness because they were not given enough time to review and respond to emails produced at the hearing.' "Whether the Tribunal erred by failing to consider extending time for the appellants' late application challenging the rent increase." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis of substantial miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal and application for leave failed because the Notice of Rent Increase was found to have been served by hand delivery to the appellants' letterbox on 30 October 2013; s 223 did not require proof of actual receipt; the appellants had an opportunity to question the agent and suffered no practical injustice from the conduct of the hearing or the emails; the Tribunal made no error of law by not considering an extension of time when no extension application was made; and the Appeal Panel was not satisfied that any substantial miscarriage of justice occurred or that the rent increase was excessive.

Court Disposition

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed;' 'The appeal is otherwise dismissed;' 'The stay granted on 4 July 2014 by the Appeal Panel of order 2 made in application RT 14/14908 is lifted;' 'The orders made by the Tribunal on 11 June 2014 remain in full force and effect.']