Pak v Ka Yau Chan [2021] NSWCATAP 85

Pak v Ka Yau Chan [2021] NSWCATAP 85

The tenant did not establish an error of law. Although failure to provide an interpreter may constitute denial of procedural fairness, the tenant had not requested an interpreter before or during the first instance proceedings, did not seek an adjournment, and accepted that with an interpreter she would have advanced the same submissions on appeal. The Appeal Panel was not satisfied that the absence of an interpreter prevented her from presenting her case. The alleged error about whether she moved out on 11 August 2020 or vacated on 13 August 2020 did not affect the operation of s 107 because less than 25% of the fixed term had expired in either case. No substantial miscarriage of justice...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Against a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancy Decision / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement by Tenant' 'abandonment of Residential Premises' 'break Lease Fee' 'rental Bond' 'procedural Fairness' 'interpreter at Tribunal Hearing' 'leave to Appeal']
['land Law' 'residential Tenancy Law' 'administrative Law'] ['termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement by Tenant' 'abandonment of Residential Premises' 'break Lease Fee' 'rental Bond' 'procedural Fairness' 'interpreter at Tribunal Hearing' 'leave to Appeal']

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 Against a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancy Decision / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the absence of a Russian interpreter at the Tribunal hearing denied the tenant procedural fairness.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding the date on which the tenant moved out or vacated the premises.' 'Whether any error of law was established or leave to appeal should be granted.' 'Whether the landlord was entitled to the bond as a break lease fee under s 107 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tenant did not establish an error of law. Although failure to provide an interpreter may constitute denial of procedural fairness, the tenant had not requested an interpreter before or during the first instance proceedings, did not seek an adjournment, and accepted that with an interpreter she would have advanced the same submissions on appeal. The Appeal Panel was not satisfied that the absence of an interpreter prevented her from presenting her case. The alleged error about whether she moved out on 11 August 2020 or vacated on 13 August 2020 did not affect the operation of s 107 because less than 25% of the fixed term had expired in either case. No substantial miscarriage of justice...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']