Kaur v Sharma (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAP 360

Kaur v Sharma (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAP 360

A hearing was dispensed with because the parties had an opportunity to make submissions, no submissions were made, the application could be determined on the material before the Appeal Panel, there appeared to be no relevant factual dispute, and a hearing would cause unnecessary expense. Time to apply for a warrant for possession was extended because the tenants were inferred to remain in possession, the termination and possession orders remained in full force after the appeal was dismissed and the stay lifted, the landlords required a warrant to enforce those orders, there was no point applying within the ordinary 30-day period while the order was stayed pending appeal, and the delay was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal Panel Ancillary Decision Concerning an Application for a Warrant for Possession / Application Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Tenants' Appeal and Lifting of the Stay of the Order for Possession
Outcome
Application granted; hearing dispensed with and time to apply for a warrant for possession extended to 10 October 2022.
Legal Topics
['warrant for Possession' 'extension of Time' 'order for Possession' 'dispensing With a Hearing' 'stay Pending Appeal']
['residential Tenancy' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['warrant for Possession' 'extension of Time' 'order for Possession' 'dispensing With a Hearing' 'stay Pending 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

Appeal Panel Ancillary Decision Concerning an Application for a Warrant for Possession / Application Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Tenants' Appeal and Lifting of the Stay of the Order for Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should the Appeal Panel dispense with a hearing of the application for the warrant for possession?' 'Should the Appeal Panel extend time for the application for the warrant for possession?']

Ratio Decidendi

A hearing was dispensed with because the parties had an opportunity to make submissions, no submissions were made, the application could be determined on the material before the Appeal Panel, there appeared to be no relevant factual dispute, and a hearing would cause unnecessary expense. Time to apply for a warrant for possession was extended because the tenants were inferred to remain in possession, the termination and possession orders remained in full force after the appeal was dismissed and the stay lifted, the landlords required a warrant to enforce those orders, there was no point applying within the ordinary 30-day period while the order was stayed pending appeal, and the delay was...

Court Disposition

Application granted; hearing dispensed with and time to apply for a warrant for possession extended to 10 October 2022.

Orders

  • ['A hearing is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' 'Time to apply for a warrant for possession is extended to 10 October 2022.']