Bhana v Chamoun [2017] NSWCATCD 105

Bhana v Chamoun [2017] NSWCATCD 105

Occupancy principle 8 prohibits converting occupation fees paid in advance into security for resident breaches; as the proprietors did not require a security deposit, and there is no written term entitling them to retain occupation fees or the key deposit for enforcement or damage costs, the resident is entitled to a full refund of occupation fees paid in advance and the key deposit.

Parties
Applicant: Pravin Bhana; Respondent: Layla Chamoun; Respondent: Mallek Chamoun; Respondent: George Chamoun; Respondent: Joseph Chamoun
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Occupancy Principles Dispute (boarding House) / Final Hearing and Determination
Outcome
Application allowed. Time extended to 11 August 2017 for the application. Orders for payment in favour of the applicant.
Legal Topics
Boarding Houses Act 2012 (nsw), Occupancy Principles for Registrable Boarding Houses, Refund of Occupation Fees and Deposits, Jurisdiction and Time Limits for Tribunal Applications, Powers and Obligations Under Occupancy Agreements
Residential Tenancy and Occupancy Administrative Law Boarding Houses Act 2012 (nsw) Occupancy Principles for Registrable Boarding Houses Refund of Occupation Fees and Deposits Jurisdiction and Time Limits for Tribunal Applications Powers and Obligations Under Occupancy Agreements

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pravin Bhana

Applicant

Layla Chamoun

Respondent

Mallek Chamoun

Respondent

George Chamoun

Respondent

Joseph Chamoun

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Occupancy Principles Dispute (boarding House) / Final Hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the resident entitled to be refunded the occupation fees he paid in advance when the proprietors recovered possession?
  2. 2 Are the proprietors entitled to retain the key deposit to cover enforcement costs?
  3. 3 Are the proprietors entitled to compensation for claimed damage, cleaning, rubbish removal, carpet and lock replacement?

Ratio Decidendi

Occupancy principle 8 prohibits converting occupation fees paid in advance into security for resident breaches; as the proprietors did not require a security deposit, and there is no written term entitling them to retain occupation fees or the key deposit for enforcement or damage costs, the resident is entitled to a full refund of occupation fees paid in advance and the key deposit.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Time extended to 11 August 2017 for the application. Orders for payment in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • Pursuant to section 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, time is extended to 11 August 2017 for this application.
  • Respondents are to pay the Applicant the sum of $682.86 immediately.