Kotsakis v Hidajat [2021] NSWCATAP 358

Kotsakis v Hidajat [2021] NSWCATAP 358

The Appeal Panel held that Orders 7 and 8 were within jurisdiction because cl 40 of the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 NSW permits a $15,000 money order and, separately, an order with respect to a rental bond up to the prescribed bond limit. The Appellant was not denied procedural fairness because he had a reasonable opportunity to file material, present submissions and ask questions, and a 13 minute hearing was not itself indicative of practical injustice. The alleged understanding that rent would be revisited did not amount to an abatement or release of rent arrears, there was no flawed fact finding, and the Appellant had not shown any substantial miscarriage of justice...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW Against a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancy Decision / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['termination of Residential Tenancy' 'rent Arrears' 'rental Bond' 'ncat Monetary Jurisdiction' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'adjournment']
['residential Tenancy' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['termination of Residential Tenancy' 'rent Arrears' 'rental Bond' 'ncat Monetary Jurisdiction' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'adjournment']

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

Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW Against a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancy Decision / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness by conducting a hearing of about 13 minutes and allegedly not considering the Tenant's case about rent payments from 23 March 2020 to 14 October 2020." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration concerning an alleged understanding that rent arrangements would be revisited in the future.' "Whether Orders 7 and 8 exceeded the Tribunal's monetary jurisdiction by requiring payment of $15,000 and directing payment of the $3,680 rental bond." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis of a substantial miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that Orders 7 and 8 were within jurisdiction because cl 40 of the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 NSW permits a $15,000 money order and, separately, an order with respect to a rental bond up to the prescribed bond limit. The Appellant was not denied procedural fairness because he had a reasonable opportunity to file material, present submissions and ask questions, and a 13 minute hearing was not itself indicative of practical injustice. The alleged understanding that rent would be revisited did not amount to an abatement or release of rent arrears, there was no flawed fact finding, and the Appellant had not shown any substantial miscarriage of justice...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']