Feng Yun v Goulburn International Pty Ltd [2012] NSWADT 276

Feng Yun v Goulburn International Pty Ltd [2012] NSWADT 276

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Applicant and her mother that no part of the $26,000 security bond had been repaid and rejected the Respondent's contrary evidence as unreliable. Although the Applicant was liable for rent from 28 January 2011 to 7 October 2011, the evidence was too unsatisfactory to prove...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Retail Lease Dispute Concerning Return of Security Bond and Alleged Overpayment of Rent / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed in part; Respondent ordered to repay the security bond with interest, with no order as to costs subject to liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
['retail Shop Lease' 'security Bond' 'rent Payments' 'overpayment of Rent' 'assessment of Witness Reliability' 'absence of Reliable Records']
['retail Leases' 'property Law' 'contract Law'] ['retail Shop Lease' 'security Bond' 'rent Payments' 'overpayment of Rent' 'assessment of Witness Reliability' 'absence of Reliable Records']

Source-derived case record

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

Retail Lease Dispute Concerning Return of Security Bond and Alleged Overpayment of Rent / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant was entitled to return of the $26,000 security bond paid in relation to the retail shop lease.' 'Whether the Applicant overpaid rent during the tenancy and was entitled to a refund.' 'Whether the Respondent had repaid any part of the security bond or was entitled to deduct any amount from it.' 'When the Applicant became liable to pay rent for the premises.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Applicant and her mother that no part of the $26,000 security bond had been repaid and rejected the Respondent's contrary evidence as unreliable. Although the Applicant was liable for rent from 28 January 2011 to 7 October 2011, the evidence was too unsatisfactory to prove either an overpayment of rent or a rent shortfall. The Respondent was therefore not entitled to deduct anything from the security bond, which had to be repaid with interest.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; Respondent ordered to repay the security bond with interest, with no order as to costs subject to liberty to apply.

Orders

  • ['The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of $28,730 inclusive of interest.' 'Subject to paragraph 54, no order as to costs.' 'Each party has liberty to apply for costs by written submissions filed and served within 21 days, with liberty to reply within 14 days, and the matter then to be decided on the...