Pont v Connolly-Bishop [2018] NSWCATAP 160

Pont v Connolly-Bishop [2018] NSWCATAP 160

The appeal succeeded only on electricity charges. Because the appellant occupied the same premises as the respondent and there was no separate meter measuring only the appellant's usage, ss 38 and 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 meant the landlord, not the tenant, was liable for electricity charges, and any agreement requiring the appellant to pay one third of those charges was void under s 21(1)(a). The respondent was therefore not entitled to withhold $197 from the rental bond. The other grounds failed or were not pressed: s 26 was a penalty provision outside the Tribunal's penalty jurisdiction, the rent reduction application was not made before the tenancy ended, no relevant...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 From a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancies Decision / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; leave for representation refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave for Representation' 'internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'electricity Charges' 'rental Bond' 'rent Reduction Application' 'procedural Fairness' 'repudiation of Residential Tenancy Agreement']
['residential Tenancy Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave for Representation' 'internal Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'electricity Charges' 'rental Bond' 'rent Reduction Application' 'procedural Fairness' 'repudiation of Residential Tenancy Agreement']

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 Under S 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 From a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancies Decision / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted for the appellant to be represented by Bruce Pont.' 'Whether lack of access to summonsed material caused a denial of procedural fairness.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred by not making findings about an alleged contravention of s 26 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding it had no jurisdiction to determine the rent reduction claim under s 44(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010.' 'Whether factual findings about rent paid to the date of vacating should be disturbed.' 'Whether the respondent was entitled to withhold $197 from the rental bond for estimated electricity charges.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded only on electricity charges. Because the appellant occupied the same premises as the respondent and there was no separate meter measuring only the appellant's usage, ss 38 and 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 meant the landlord, not the tenant, was liable for electricity charges, and any agreement requiring the appellant to pay one third of those charges was void under s 21(1)(a). The respondent was therefore not entitled to withhold $197 from the rental bond. The other grounds failed or were not pressed: s 26 was a penalty provision outside the Tribunal's penalty jurisdiction, the rent reduction application was not made before the tenancy ended, no relevant...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; leave for representation refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave for the appellant to be represented by Bruce Pont is refused.' 'The appeal is allowed in part.' 'The respondent is to pay the appellant $197 within 14 days of the date of publication these orders.' 'The appeal is otherwise dismissed.']