Nguyen v Shakil [2024] NSWCATAP 229

Nguyen v Shakil [2024] NSWCATAP 229

The Appeal Panel found no denial of procedural fairness, no error of law, and no basis for leave to appeal under the grounds asserted. The Tribunal properly assessed all claims based on the available evidence, correctly ruled on the validity of compensation claims, and reasonably and lawfully exercised its discretion. The appeal and application for costs were consequently dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Hong Nguyen; First Respondent: MD Shaidul Islam Shakil; Second Respondent: MD Rakibul Hassan Raju; Third Respondent: SM Redwanul Hoque
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused; costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Bond Claims, Leave to Appeal, Weight of Evidence, Fairness (procedural)
Residential Tenancy Civil Procedure Bond Claims Leave to Appeal Weight of Evidence Fairness (procedural)

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hong Nguyen

Appellant

MD Shaidul Islam Shakil

First Respondent

MD Rakibul Hassan Raju

Second Respondent

SM Redwanul Hoque

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness to the landlord
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted pursuant to clause 12(1) of Schedule 4 of the NCAT Act
  3. 3 Whether the decision was against the weight of the evidence presented

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel found no denial of procedural fairness, no error of law, and no basis for leave to appeal under the grounds asserted. The Tribunal properly assessed all claims based on the available evidence, correctly ruled on the validity of compensation claims, and reasonably and lawfully exercised its discretion. The appeal and application for costs were consequently dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused; costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • Appeal is dismissed.