Hewlett v Chandler [2016] NSWCATAP 50

Hewlett v Chandler [2016] NSWCATAP 50

The stay was refused because the tenants' procedural fairness ground had no real prospect of success: even if there had been a breach, there was no possibility the Tribunal would have made a different decision where it was satisfied the contract of sale required vacant possession and the requirements of s 86 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 had been met. The balance of convenience strongly favoured the landlords because settlement was imminent and they stood to lose the sale if vacant possession was not granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Tribunal Orders in Residential Tenancy Appeal / Appeal Panel Interlocutory Stay Application
Outcome
Application for a stay of the Tribunal's orders made on 4 December 2015 in RT 15/63471 is refused.
Legal Topics
['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'vacant Possession' 'procedural Fairness' 'termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'balance of Convenience']
['residential Tenancies' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'vacant Possession' 'procedural Fairness' 'termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'balance of Convenience']

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 for Stay of Tribunal Orders in Residential Tenancy Appeal / Appeal Panel Interlocutory Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal's orders terminating the residential tenancy agreement and giving possession to the landlords should be stayed pending appeal." "Whether the tenants' procedural fairness ground had sufficient merit to support a stay." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured a stay where settlement on sale of the property was scheduled for 14 December 2015.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the tenants' procedural fairness ground had no real prospect of success: even if there had been a breach, there was no possibility the Tribunal would have made a different decision where it was satisfied the contract of sale required vacant possession and the requirements of s 86 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 had been met. The balance of convenience strongly favoured the landlords because settlement was imminent and they stood to lose the sale if vacant possession was not granted.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay of the Tribunal's orders made on 4 December 2015 in RT 15/63471 is refused.

Orders

  • ["Application for a stay of the Tribunal's orders made on 4 December 2015 in RT 15/63471 is refused."]