Huang v Sinclair [2017] NSWCATCD 9

Huang v Sinclair [2017] NSWCATCD 9

The Tribunal refused the adjournment because the tenant had notice of the hearing, knew the general nature of the case, had not shown a sufficient basis for legal-representation delay, relied on proposed matters not relevant to the section 92 application, and produced a medical certificate that did not establish inability to attend, while the landlord would suffer serious prejudice if the urgent application were delayed. On the evidence, including oral evidence, documents and a recording, the Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that the tenant repeatedly seriously threatened and abused the landlord, seriously abused the Managing Agent, and intentionally engaged in conduct reasonably likely...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application by Landlord for Termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement Under Section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 / Consumer and Commercial Division Hearing; Tenant Absent and Requested Adjournment
Outcome
Adjournment refused; residential tenancy agreement terminated; possession given to landlord with order for possession suspended to 20 February 2017.
Legal Topics
['termination of Tenancy for Threat, Abuse, Intimidation or Harassment' 'adjournment' 'service of Notice of Hearing' 'hearing in Absence of Party' 'order for Possession' 'suspension of Possession Order']

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 Landlord for Termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement Under Section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 / Consumer and Commercial Division Hearing; Tenant Absent and Requested Adjournment

  1. 1 ['Whether the tenant had been served with notice of the hearing and whether justice required the application to be heard in his absence.' "Whether the tenant's request for an adjournment should be granted." "Whether the tenant seriously or persistently threatened or abused the landlord or the landlord's agent within section 92(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010." "Whether the tenant intentionally engaged in conduct in relation to the landlord or the landlord's agent that would reasonably be likely to cause intimidation or harassment within section 92(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010." 'Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to terminate the tenancy and whether the order for possession should be suspended.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused the adjournment because the tenant had notice of the hearing, knew the general nature of the case, had not shown a sufficient basis for legal-representation delay, relied on proposed matters not relevant to the section 92 application, and produced a medical certificate that did not establish inability to attend, while the landlord would suffer serious prejudice if the urgent application were delayed. On the evidence, including oral evidence, documents and a recording, the Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that the tenant repeatedly seriously threatened and abused the landlord, seriously abused the Managing Agent, and intentionally engaged in conduct reasonably likely...

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused; residential tenancy agreement terminated; possession given to landlord with order for possession suspended to 20 February 2017.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal is satisfied that the Application and Notice of hearing have been served on the tenant in accordance with section 223 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010, and that justice requires that the Application be heard and determined in the absence of the tenant.' "The tenant's application for an...