Darius v Aron [2022] NSWCATCD 4

Darius v Aron [2022] NSWCATCD 4

The applicant and respondent entered a partly oral and partly written residential tenancy agreement for the premises, and the applicant proved she paid a rental bond of $1,540.00. The respondent had not lodged the bond and failed to prove any entitlement to retain it. He could not recover gas or electricity charges because there was no evidence the premises were separately metered or within an embedded network exception, and any agreement to deduct $200.00 for electricity was inconsistent with the statutory obligation on the landlord and void. He also failed to prove breach, damage, cleaning loss, gardening loss or locksmith loss. The applicant was therefore entitled to return of the full...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Application by Former Tenant Under S 175 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (nsw) for an Order as to Payment of a Rental Bond / Final Hearing in the Consumer and Commercial Division; Decision Reserved and Orders Made
Outcome
Application allowed; the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant the full rental bond.
Legal Topics
['return of Rental Bond' 'residential Tenancy Agreement' 'utility Charges' 'separately Metered Premises' 'embedded Networks' 'tenant Damage and Cleaning Claims' 'tribunal Jurisdiction']
['residential Tenancies' 'consumer and Commercial' 'civil Procedure'] ['return of Rental Bond' 'residential Tenancy Agreement' 'utility Charges' 'separately Metered Premises' 'embedded Networks' 'tenant Damage and Cleaning Claims' 'tribunal Jurisdiction']

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

Application by Former Tenant Under S 175 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (nsw) for an Order as to Payment of a Rental Bond / Final Hearing in the Consumer and Commercial Division; Decision Reserved and Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the proceedings' 'Whether there was a residential tenancy agreement between the applicant and the respondent' 'Whether the applicant paid a rental bond of $1,540.00 to the respondent' 'Whether the respondent was entitled to recover gas and electricity charges from the applicant' 'Whether the applicant breached the agreement and, if so, whether the respondent was entitled to recover damages for any such breaches']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant and respondent entered a partly oral and partly written residential tenancy agreement for the premises, and the applicant proved she paid a rental bond of $1,540.00. The respondent had not lodged the bond and failed to prove any entitlement to retain it. He could not recover gas or electricity charges because there was no evidence the premises were separately metered or within an embedded network exception, and any agreement to deduct $200.00 for electricity was inconsistent with the statutory obligation on the landlord and void. He also failed to prove breach, damage, cleaning loss, gardening loss or locksmith loss. The applicant was therefore entitled to return of the full...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant the full rental bond.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to pay the sum of $1,540.00 to the applicant immediately.']