Crowley v King [2022] NSWCATAP 294
The Tribunal erred by not treating the consent orders made on 14 March 2022 as binding; parties were estopped from denying them. The correct termination date for vacant possession was determined by those consent orders. Compensation should be awarded only in part for rubbish/furniture removal due to limited access and practical difficulties for the tenant imposed by the landlord's actions.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 September 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Residential Tenancy Appeal / Appeal Panel Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- ['termination of Tenancy' 'estoppel' 'consent Orders' 'appeals' 'compensation' 'bias']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Appeal / Appeal Panel Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether parties were estopped from denying effect of earlier consent termination orders' "Whether Tribunal Member's conduct gave rise to apprehension of bias or actual bias" 'Claims for compensation relating to bond deduction: lawn mowing, cleaning, removal of furniture/rubbish']
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal erred by not treating the consent orders made on 14 March 2022 as binding; parties were estopped from denying them. The correct termination date for vacant possession was determined by those consent orders. Compensation should be awarded only in part for rubbish/furniture removal due to limited access and practical difficulties for the tenant imposed by the landlord's actions.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- ['Orders made by the Tribunal on 2 June 2022 in RT22/12983 are set aside' 'Respondent to pay the appellant $325 within seven days']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment