Barkat v Sun [2022] NSWCATAP 200

Barkat v Sun [2022] NSWCATAP 200

The Tribunal did not err in declining to make a declaration under section 11, or in refusing to order a written residential tenancy agreement under section 16, as there was no dispute as to the existence or terms of the oral agreement, and no utility in making such orders. The Tribunal observed the correct legal principles and procedural fairness was not breached. No error of law or substantial miscarriage of justice was demonstrated to justify leave to appeal.

Parties
First Appellant: Mark Barkat; Second Appellant: Rubina Barkat; First Respondent: Zechaou Sun; Second Respondent: Aiquing Xu
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Residential Tenancy Agreement, Oral Tenancy Agreement, Discretion to Order Written Agreement, Procedural Fairness
Landlord and Tenant Administrative Law Residential Tenancy Agreement Oral Tenancy Agreement Discretion to Order Written Agreement Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Barkat

First Appellant

Rubina Barkat

Second Appellant

Zechaou Sun

First Respondent

Aiquing Xu

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in not making a declaration under section 11 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal properly exercised discretion under section 16 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was observed

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in declining to make a declaration under section 11, or in refusing to order a written residential tenancy agreement under section 16, as there was no dispute as to the existence or terms of the oral agreement, and no utility in making such orders. The Tribunal observed the correct legal principles and procedural fairness was not breached. No error of law or substantial miscarriage of justice was demonstrated to justify leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The appeal is dismissed.