Roberts v Hardie [2022] NSWCATAP 281

Roberts v Hardie [2022] NSWCATAP 281

The landlords did not identify any question of law and did not establish that they may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice under cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the NCAT Act. The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence before it, that the landlords had proved only that the carpet required remediation, not replacement. The process was not shown to be unfair, the decision was not against the weight of evidence, and the later ChemDry report was not significant new evidence that was unavailable before the hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancy Decision / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['residential Tenancy Bond and Compensation' 'carpet Remediation or Replacement' 'leave to Appeal' 'question of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'weight of Evidence' 'significant New Evidence']
['leases and Tenancies' 'administrative Law'] ['residential Tenancy Bond and Compensation' 'carpet Remediation or Replacement' 'leave to Appeal' 'question of Law' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'weight of Evidence' 'significant New Evidence']

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

Internal Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancy Decision / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the landlords' grounds of appeal raised a question of law." "Whether the landlords may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice because the Tribunal's decision was not fair and equitable." "Whether the Tribunal's decision was against the weight of evidence." 'Whether the ChemDry report dated 29 March 2022 was significant new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the hearing.' "Whether leave to appeal should be granted in relation to the Tribunal's refusal to award the cost of replacing the whole carpet."]

Ratio Decidendi

The landlords did not identify any question of law and did not establish that they may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice under cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the NCAT Act. The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence before it, that the landlords had proved only that the carpet required remediation, not replacement. The process was not shown to be unfair, the decision was not against the weight of evidence, and the later ChemDry report was not significant new evidence that was unavailable before the hearing.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']