Courtney Challinor v Lynnette Borthistle [2014] NSWCATCD 73

Courtney Challinor v Lynnette Borthistle [2014] NSWCATCD 73

The applicant was entitled to a refund of the $840.00 because the $280.00 was paid as rent and not as a holding fee, the $560.00 was bond money that the respondent failed to deposit, the respondent engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the advertised premises, and any proposed sub-letting without the landlord's written consent would be void. The respondent's claim to retain the money for keeping the premises vacant had no legal basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Application for Payment of Moneys and Refund of Bond Moneys / Written Reasons for Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; respondent ordered to refund $840.00 to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['sub Letting of Premises' 'refund of Moneys Paid in Advance' 'refund of Bond Moneys' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct by Landlord' 'holding Fee' 'bond Lodgement']
['residential Tenancy Law'] ['sub Letting of Premises' 'refund of Moneys Paid in Advance' 'refund of Bond Moneys' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct by Landlord' 'holding Fee' 'bond Lodgement']

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

Residential Tenancy Application for Payment of Moneys and Refund of Bond Moneys / Written Reasons for Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent was entitled to retain $280.00 paid by the applicant as one week's rent as a holding fee." 'Whether the respondent was entitled to retain $560.00 described on the receipt as bond moneys.' 'Whether the respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in advertising the part of the premises proposed to be sub-let.' "Whether the proposed sub-letting was valid without the landlord's written consent." 'Whether the applicant was entitled to a refund of the $840.00 paid to the respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was entitled to a refund of the $840.00 because the $280.00 was paid as rent and not as a holding fee, the $560.00 was bond money that the respondent failed to deposit, the respondent engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the advertised premises, and any proposed sub-letting without the landlord's written consent would be void. The respondent's claim to retain the money for keeping the premises vacant had no legal basis.

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent ordered to refund $840.00 to the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $840.00 on or before 31 March 2014.']