Turnbull v Bridge Housing Limited [2021] NSWCATAP 18

Turnbull v Bridge Housing Limited [2021] NSWCATAP 18

The appeal was dismissed because no procedural unfairness or other appealable error was established. The appellant chose to have Mr Story represent her after being given information about representation, and it was procedurally permissible for the Tribunal to allow only one speaker for each party. The evidence did not establish that the appellant was unable to listen to the hearing; she and Mr Story were in the same room and the transcript showed she could hear and respond. Mr Story had authority to bind the appellant and validly consented to the access order. No ground for setting aside the consent order was established, and the landlord was entitled to choose tiles as replacement...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel Appeal From Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division Made on 20 July 2020
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'representation Before Ncat' 'consent Orders' 'landlord Access to Premises' 'repairs and Flooring in Rental Premises' 'rent Reduction and Compensation']
['residential Tenancy Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['procedural Fairness' 'representation Before Ncat' 'consent Orders' 'landlord Access to Premises' 'repairs and Flooring in Rental Premises' 'rent Reduction and Compensation']

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 in Residential Tenancy Proceedings / Appeal Panel Appeal From Decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division Made on 20 July 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness by not being able to speak at the hearing along with her nominated representative.' 'Whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness by not being able to listen to the hearing.' "Whether the landlord was entitled to decide what flooring should be installed in the rental premises without regard to the tenant's preferences." "Whether the appellant's representative was able to consent to orders and bind the appellant by that consent."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because no procedural unfairness or other appealable error was established. The appellant chose to have Mr Story represent her after being given information about representation, and it was procedurally permissible for the Tribunal to allow only one speaker for each party. The evidence did not establish that the appellant was unable to listen to the hearing; she and Mr Story were in the same room and the transcript showed she could hear and respond. Mr Story had authority to bind the appellant and validly consented to the access order. No ground for setting aside the consent order was established, and the landlord was entitled to choose tiles as replacement...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal is dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.' "The stay entered on 21 September 2020 is lifted. Order 3 made on 20 July 2020 is enlivened, that is, by consent the tenant will allow the landlord and or its authorised contractor access to the property for the purposes of laying tiles in the bedroom providing that at...