Saqa v Kahshro [2016] NSWCATAP 273

Saqa v Kahshro [2016] NSWCATAP 273

The appeal raised factual issues requiring leave. On the evidence before the Appeal Panel, rent payable from 6 February 2016 to 10 March 2016 was $2,550.00 and rent paid for that period was $2,625.00, leaving only the $75.00 overpayment already awarded. The documents did not prove that $3,150.00 rather than $2,625.00 was paid on 5 February 2016 or that a further $525.00 was paid on 26 February 2016. The Tribunal was correct to find no discrepancy beyond one day's rent, and the appellant did not suffer a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Rent Overpayment Appeal / Appeal Panel Hearing on Leave to Appeal From the Consumer and Commercial Division
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['rent Overpayment' 'residential Tenancy Agreement' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'rent Ledger' 'rental Bond']
['residential Tenancies' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure'] ['rent Overpayment' 'residential Tenancy Agreement' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'rent Ledger' 'rental Bond']

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

Residential Tenancy Rent Overpayment Appeal / Appeal Panel Hearing on Leave to Appeal From the Consumer and Commercial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the appeal raised factual issues about calculation of rent allegedly overpaid.' 'Whether the tenants overpaid rent for the period from 6 February 2016 until 11 March 2016 beyond the one day of rent already awarded.' "Whether the rent ledger and receipts supported the appellant's assertion that additional cash payments were made."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal raised factual issues requiring leave. On the evidence before the Appeal Panel, rent payable from 6 February 2016 to 10 March 2016 was $2,550.00 and rent paid for that period was $2,625.00, leaving only the $75.00 overpayment already awarded. The documents did not prove that $3,150.00 rather than $2,625.00 was paid on 5 February 2016 or that a further $525.00 was paid on 26 February 2016. The Tribunal was correct to find no discrepancy beyond one day's rent, and the appellant did not suffer a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Patricia Tukana and Atunaisa Saqa are added as applicants in application RT 16/38922.' 'Patricia Tukana and Atunaisa Saqa are added as appellants in this appeal.' 'Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is otherwise dismissed.']