Chalker v Reardon [2020] NSWCATAP 187

Chalker v Reardon [2020] NSWCATAP 187

The appeal and cross-appeal were allowed because the Tribunal made errors of law: it wrongly treated the expiry of the first tenancy agreement as barring recovery of earlier water charges, and it either failed properly to consider the Landlords' evidence and contentions on quantum or failed to give adequate reasons for adopting $3,948.80 as the amount repayable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Residential Tenancy Proceedings Concerning Refund of Water Usage Charges / Appeal Panel Review of NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 4 June 2020
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order set aside; entitlement to repayment declared; proceedings remitted for re-determination of quantum.
Legal Topics
['water Usage Charges' 'refund of Payments' 'quantum' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'remittal' 'restitution']
['residential Tenancies' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['water Usage Charges' 'refund of Payments' 'quantum' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'remittal' 'restitution']

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 in Residential Tenancy Proceedings Concerning Refund of Water Usage Charges / Appeal Panel Review of NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 4 June 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tenant could recover water usage charges paid under the first residential tenancy agreement before 26 March 2018.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the quantum of water usage charges to be repaid by reference to Goldenfields Water bills rather than the amounts allegedly paid under handwritten invoices.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the Landlords' case on quantum."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal and cross-appeal were allowed because the Tribunal made errors of law: it wrongly treated the expiry of the first tenancy agreement as barring recovery of earlier water charges, and it either failed properly to consider the Landlords' evidence and contentions on quantum or failed to give adequate reasons for adopting $3,948.80 as the amount repayable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order set aside; entitlement to repayment declared; proceedings remitted for re-determination of quantum.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'Set aside the order made by the Tribunal on 4 June 2020.' 'Declare that the appellants must pay the respondent, pursuant to s 47 (5) or s187 (1) (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010, the amount of the water charges paid by the respondent to the appellants over the period from 16 June...