Okun v Danielli [2020] NSWCATAP 44

Okun v Danielli [2020] NSWCATAP 44

The early February 2019 agreement constituted a comprehensive set of terms for consensual termination of the tenancy, including all mutual rights and obligations, and did not encompass a requirement to pay the break fee. Therefore, the landlord was not entitled to a break fee, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; time for lodging appeal extended
Legal Topics
['break Fee' 'consensual Termination' 'abandonment' 'procedural Fairness']
['residential Tenancy' 'contract Law'] ['break Fee' 'consensual Termination' 'abandonment' 'procedural Fairness']

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 / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether tenants abandoned the premises or vacated with landlord's consent" 'Whether landlord is entitled to a break fee under the lease or Residential Tenancies Act 2010' 'Whether there was appellable error by the Tribunal at first instance' 'Whether an agreement to waive the break fee existed']

Ratio Decidendi

The early February 2019 agreement constituted a comprehensive set of terms for consensual termination of the tenancy, including all mutual rights and obligations, and did not encompass a requirement to pay the break fee. Therefore, the landlord was not entitled to a break fee, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; time for lodging appeal extended

Orders

  • ['Time for lodging appeal extended to 14 October 2019' 'Appeal dismissed']