El Amami v Perkins [2019] NSWCATAP 136

El Amami v Perkins [2019] NSWCATAP 136

The appellant failed to demonstrate denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error. There was no sworn evidence or sufficient proof the notice of hearing was not received. Claims of illegality due to subdivision were unsupported and, even if true, would not void the rent obligation under governing statutes and case law. The requirements for extension of time and for leave to appeal were not met, and, since the warrant for possession was executed, the Panel had no power to grant leave under the Act.

Parties
Appellant: Omar El Amami; Respondent: Nina Perkins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Determination of Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal, Appeal on Question of Law
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for extension of time and leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Termination of Tenancy, Arrears of Rent, Procedural Fairness, Possession Orders, Illegality of Tenancy, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal
Residental Tenancy Law Administrative Law Termination of Tenancy Arrears of Rent Procedural Fairness Possession Orders Illegality of Tenancy Extension of Time +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omar El Amami

Appellant

Nina Perkins

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal / Determination of Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal, Appeal on Question of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness by not being notified of the hearing
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make orders in the absence of the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the alleged illegality of the property (subdivision issues) invalidated the tenancy or the obligation to pay rent

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to demonstrate denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error. There was no sworn evidence or sufficient proof the notice of hearing was not received. Claims of illegality due to subdivision were unsupported and, even if true, would not void the rent obligation under governing statutes and case law. The requirements for extension of time and for leave to appeal were not met, and, since the warrant for possession was executed, the Panel had no power to grant leave under the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for extension of time and leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time in which to bring the appeal insofar as it relates to the decision made on 4 March 2019 is refused.
  • Leave to appeal is refused.