Shapkin v Lorenzato [2024] NSWSC 1620

Shapkin v Lorenzato [2024] NSWSC 1620

The Court found that both the purported subsequent agreements did not have the legal effect the plaintiff asserted; the Tribunal and Appeal Panel did not err, either jurisdictionally or on the face of the record, in their orders. The consent orders of 25 March 2022 lawfully terminated the tenancy by agreement between the parties. No error, injustice, or issue of public importance justified a grant of leave to appeal. There was no utility in granting any relief, as any continuing rights under the tenancy agreement were long spent and both parties had acted to that effect. Extensions of time for judicial review were refused where there was delay and no fairly arguable case. The application...

Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Vasily Shapkin; First Defendant (2022/00379809); Defendant (2022/00379871): Ms Angele Lorenzato; Second Defendant (2022/00379809): NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal; Amicus: Attorney General (NSW)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Judicial Review / Principal Judgment at First Instance, Supreme Court of NSW
Outcome
Plaintiff's applications dismissed; leave to appeal refused; judicial review and declarations refused; extensions of time granted only in part.
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Error, Consent Orders, Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Leave to Appeal, Residential Tenancy Agreement, Utility of Proceedings, Apprehended Bias, Legal Capacity
Administrative Law Residential Tenancies Appellate Practice Jurisdictional Error Consent Orders Extension of Time Judicial Review Leave to Appeal +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Vasily Shapkin

Plaintiff

Ms Angele Lorenzato

First Defendant (2022/00379809); Defendant (2022/00379871)

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Second Defendant (2022/00379809)

Attorney General (NSW)

Amicus

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Judicial Review / Principal Judgment at First Instance, Supreme Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Tribunal or Appeal Panel decisions involved jurisdictional error following alleged prior termination of tenancy agreement
  2. 2 Whether applicant entitled to judicial review or leave to appeal given subsequent agreements/documents
  3. 3 Whether proceedings possess any utility given consent orders and passage of time

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that both the purported subsequent agreements did not have the legal effect the plaintiff asserted; the Tribunal and Appeal Panel did not err, either jurisdictionally or on the face of the record, in their orders. The consent orders of 25 March 2022 lawfully terminated the tenancy by agreement between the parties. No error, injustice, or issue of public importance justified a grant of leave to appeal. There was no utility in granting any relief, as any continuing rights under the tenancy agreement were long spent and both parties had acted to that effect. Extensions of time for judicial review were refused where there was delay and no fairly arguable case. The application...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's applications dismissed; leave to appeal refused; judicial review and declarations refused; extensions of time granted only in part.

Orders

  • An extension of time is granted to seek leave to appeal from the orders of the Appeal Panel of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal of 25 March 2022, but the summons seeking leave to appeal filed 8 September 2023 is dismissed.
  • Extensions of time for seeking judicial review, where needed, are otherwise refused.