Jin v Jupiter St James Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 210

Jin v Jupiter St James Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 210

The Appeal Panel found no error of law in the Tribunal's approach. The Tribunal did not err in finding the premises were not uninhabitable per s 109, nor in refusing the tenant’s application for rent abatement as he was no longer a 'tenant' as defined at the time of application. Its evaluation of the evidence and rejection of additional post-hearing evidence were open to it. Leave to appeal on other grounds was refused as no substantial miscarriage of justice was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal Internal (ncat Appeal Panel) / Decision on Application for Leave and on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Application for leave to appeal on grounds other than question of law refused.
Legal Topics
['termination Notice Based on Frustration of Agreement' 'break Fee Claim by Landlord' 'rent Abatement and Compensation for Tenant' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'appeal on Question of Law' 'appeal Panel Procedures']
['residential Tenancy' 'tribunal Procedure'] ['termination Notice Based on Frustration of Agreement' 'break Fee Claim by Landlord' 'rent Abatement and Compensation for Tenant' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'appeal on Question of Law' 'appeal Panel Procedures']

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 Internal (ncat Appeal Panel) / Decision on Application for Leave and on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in law in finding the premises were not wholly or partly uninhabitable and in refusing the tenant’s claim under s 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)' "Whether the Tribunal misapplied the law regarding the tenant's standing to seek rent abatement after termination" 'Whether errors in evaluation of the evidence or procedural unfairness occurred so as to warrant leave to appeal' 'Whether new evidence should be received on appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel found no error of law in the Tribunal's approach. The Tribunal did not err in finding the premises were not uninhabitable per s 109, nor in refusing the tenant’s application for rent abatement as he was no longer a 'tenant' as defined at the time of application. Its evaluation of the evidence and rejection of additional post-hearing evidence were open to it. Leave to appeal on other grounds was refused as no substantial miscarriage of justice was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Application for leave to appeal on grounds other than question of law refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal on grounds other than question of law is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'The stay on the operation of order (10) made on 15 January 2019 is lifted.']