Auld v Shannon [2017] NSWCATCD 56

Auld v Shannon [2017] NSWCATCD 56

The Tribunal refused to extend time because the tenant had been given sufficient information and opportunity to lodge an online application within the required time, his absence overseas and lack of paperwork did not sufficiently explain the delay, the landlord had a strong case on the rental bond issues, the tenant produced little substantive evidence, and the landlord would suffer prejudice if time were extended. As the rental bond claim was out of time, the application was dismissed. Peter Shannon was removed because he was not a landlord under the tenancy agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Rental Bond Claim and Application for Extension of Time / Preliminary Issue as to Whether Time Should Be Extended for the Application
Outcome
Application dismissed because it was lodged out of time; Peter Shannon removed as a respondent.
Legal Topics
['rental Bond Claim' 'extension of Time' 'time Limits' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'prejudice']
['residential Tenancies' 'civil Procedure'] ['rental Bond Claim' 'extension of Time' 'time Limits' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'prejudice']

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

Rental Bond Claim and Application for Extension of Time / Preliminary Issue as to Whether Time Should Be Extended for the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the tenant's rental bond claim was lodged out of time under Section 175(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 and Clause 22(8) of the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2010." 'Whether time should be extended under Section 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 for the tenant to seek return of the rental bond.' 'Whether Peter Shannon should remain a respondent where he was not a landlord under the tenancy agreement.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused to extend time because the tenant had been given sufficient information and opportunity to lodge an online application within the required time, his absence overseas and lack of paperwork did not sufficiently explain the delay, the landlord had a strong case on the rental bond issues, the tenant produced little substantive evidence, and the landlord would suffer prejudice if time were extended. As the rental bond claim was out of time, the application was dismissed. Peter Shannon was removed because he was not a landlord under the tenancy agreement.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed because it was lodged out of time; Peter Shannon removed as a respondent.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed because the application has been lodged out of time (Section 175(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010).' 'Peter Shannon is removed as a respondent.']