Jordan v Audet [2016] NSWCATAP 22

Jordan v Audet [2016] NSWCATAP 22

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant identified no question of law and did not show that the first instance decision was not fair and equitable, against the weight of the evidence, or productive of a substantial miscarriage of justice. The mould report did not attribute the cause entirely to the tenant and the Tribunal's finding that the landlord failed to investigate and remedy persistent mould was open on the evidence. The non-disclosure application was refused because the respondent's name was not shown to be confidential, the Act presumes open hearings and reporting, and there was no persuasive evidence justifying the asserted fear of prejudice in future rental applications.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused and the appeal otherwise dismissed; application for non-disclosure of the respondent's name refused.
Legal Topics
['civil and Administrative Tribunal Internal Appeals' 'leave to Appeal' 'against the Weight of Evidence' 'fair and Equitable Decision' 'residential Premises Cleanliness and Repair' 'mould Damage' 'non Disclosure Order']
['administrative Law' 'residential Tenancies'] ['civil and Administrative Tribunal Internal Appeals' 'leave to Appeal' 'against the Weight of Evidence' 'fair and Equitable Decision' 'residential Premises Cleanliness and Repair' 'mould Damage' 'non Disclosure 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

Internal Appeal in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis that the Tribunal's decision was not fair and equitable or was against the weight of evidence." "Whether the evidence concerning the cause of mould and the landlord's remediation efforts showed a substantial miscarriage of justice." "Whether the respondent's name should be withheld from publication under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant identified no question of law and did not show that the first instance decision was not fair and equitable, against the weight of the evidence, or productive of a substantial miscarriage of justice. The mould report did not attribute the cause entirely to the tenant and the Tribunal's finding that the landlord failed to investigate and remedy persistent mould was open on the evidence. The non-disclosure application was refused because the respondent's name was not shown to be confidential, the Act presumes open hearings and reporting, and there was no persuasive evidence justifying the asserted fear of prejudice in future rental applications.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused and the appeal otherwise dismissed; application for non-disclosure of the respondent's name refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is otherwise dismissed.' 'The Registrar is directed not to publish these reasons on the internet until 5 days after the parties have been provided with them.']