Williams v Jeffreys [2021] NSWCATAP 305
The Tribunal made an error of law by ordering a refund of a break lease fee when there was no evidence that any break lease fee had been paid to the landlord; hence, the appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted for fresh determination.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 October 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Internal Appeal / Appeal Determination
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted for reconsideration; costs to lie as incurred; extension of time granted; balance of appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'error of Law' 'break Lease Fee' 'compensation' 'costs']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Appeal Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether there was an error of law in ordering refund of a break lease fee when no such fee was paid' 'Whether leave and extension of time to appeal should be granted' 'Whether special circumstances for a costs order exist']
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal made an error of law by ordering a refund of a break lease fee when there was no evidence that any break lease fee had been paid to the landlord; hence, the appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted for fresh determination.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted for reconsideration; costs to lie as incurred; extension of time granted; balance of appeal dismissed.
Orders
- ['Time to lodge the Notice of Appeal is extended to 2 July 2021.' 'The appeal is allowed.' 'The Orders of the Tribunal made on 17 May 2021 in RT 21/06554 are set aside.' 'The matter is remitted to the Tribunal, differently constituted, to be determined according to law, with such new evidence as the Tribunal may...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment