Katsiotis v Rogers [2021] NSWCATAP 269

Katsiotis v Rogers [2021] NSWCATAP 269

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed because the appellants did not show a substantial miscarriage of justice under cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) and did not establish any error of law. The Tribunal's factual findings that there was no expert evidence, no evidence of more than one rat or that it lived in the premises, that the landlord's agent took immediate steps including engaging a pest controller, and that the appellants remained until 20 November 2020 were open on the evidence. It was also open to find that the premises were not uninhabitable for s 109 and that the landlord's response did not breach s 50(2).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancy Decision / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Before the NCAT Appeal Panel
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['residential Tenancies Act 2010 (nsw)' 'uninhabitable Premises' 'quiet Enjoyment' 'rent Abatement' 'rental Bond' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']
['residential Tenancies' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['residential Tenancies Act 2010 (nsw)' 'uninhabitable Premises' 'quiet Enjoyment' 'rent Abatement' 'rental Bond' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice']

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 From a Consumer and Commercial Division Residential Tenancy Decision / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Before the NCAT Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 80(2)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) and cl 12(1) of Sch 4.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the premises were not wholly or partly uninhabitable within s 109(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW).' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing rent abatement, compensation and return of the rental bond.' "Whether the landlord or landlord's agent breached the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment under s 50(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused and the appeal dismissed because the appellants did not show a substantial miscarriage of justice under cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) and did not establish any error of law. The Tribunal's factual findings that there was no expert evidence, no evidence of more than one rat or that it lived in the premises, that the landlord's agent took immediate steps including engaging a pest controller, and that the appellants remained until 20 November 2020 were open on the evidence. It was also open to find that the premises were not uninhabitable for s 109 and that the landlord's response did not breach s 50(2).

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']