Cure v Bridge Housing Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 80

Cure v Bridge Housing Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 80

The Tribunal at first instance erred in construing s 90(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 by finding that intention need not relate to the result of damage. The correct construction requires that the action must be done intentionally or recklessly with respect to causing serious damage. The decision below was based upon this misconstruction and must be set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Jules Byron Cure; Respondent: Bridge Housing Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Determination on Question of Law, Orders Set Aside and Case Remitted
Outcome
Appeal allowed, extension of time granted, orders set aside, case remitted for rehearing
Legal Topics
Termination of Tenancy Agreement, Intentional or Reckless Damage, Construction of S 90(1) Residential Tenancies Act 2010, Extension of Time to Appeal
Residential Tenancy Administrative Law Termination of Tenancy Agreement Intentional or Reckless Damage Construction of S 90(1) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 Extension of Time to Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jules Byron Cure

Appellant

Bridge Housing Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Panel Determination on Question of Law, Orders Set Aside and Case Remitted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal at first instance erred in its construction and application of s 90(1) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) regarding intentional or reckless damage
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal at first instance erred in construing s 90(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 by finding that intention need not relate to the result of damage. The correct construction requires that the action must be done intentionally or recklessly with respect to causing serious damage. The decision below was based upon this misconstruction and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, extension of time granted, orders set aside, case remitted for rehearing

Orders

  • An oral hearing of this appeal matter be disposed with.
  • An extension of time to 20 May 2014 be granted for the lodging of the Notice of Appeal.