Kamel v Marr [2022] NSWCATAP 298

Kamel v Marr [2022] NSWCATAP 298

The Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal because the Appellants did not establish any question of law, including procedural unfairness, in the absence of a transcript or sound recording and given the Respondents' contrary account and Mr Kamel's functional English at the appeal. Leave to appeal was refused because the Tribunal's reasons showed a reasonable, systematic and thorough analysis of the parties' evidence and submissions; the decision was not shown to be unfair, inequitable, or against the weight of evidence; the proposed additional material was either reasonably available before the original hearing, irrelevant, or not significant; and no Collins v Urban discretionary factor...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Leave to Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Orders
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['residential Tenancy Agreement' "landlord's Rights to Enter Residential Premises" 'termination Orders' 'rental Bond' 'compensation' 'internal Appeals' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'weight of Evidence' 'fresh Evidence']
['leases and Tenancies' 'administrative Law'] ['residential Tenancy Agreement' "landlord's Rights to Enter Residential Premises" 'termination Orders' 'rental Bond' 'compensation' 'internal Appeals' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'weight of Evidence' 'fresh 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 Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Appeal and Leave to Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appeal raised a question of law, including whether the Appellants were denied procedural fairness by the presiding member's questioning or the Arabic interpreter's temporary disconnection." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis that the original decision was not fair and equitable, was against the weight of evidence, or significant new evidence had arisen.' "Whether the Appellants' proposed additional documents were significant new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing." 'Whether the Appeal Panel should exercise its discretion to grant leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal because the Appellants did not establish any question of law, including procedural unfairness, in the absence of a transcript or sound recording and given the Respondents' contrary account and Mr Kamel's functional English at the appeal. Leave to appeal was refused because the Tribunal's reasons showed a reasonable, systematic and thorough analysis of the parties' evidence and submissions; the decision was not shown to be unfair, inequitable, or against the weight of evidence; the proposed additional material was either reasonably available before the original hearing, irrelevant, or not significant; and no Collins v Urban discretionary factor...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be refused.' 'The appeal otherwise be dismissed.']