Krnjic v Jiang [2021] NSWCATCD 39

Krnjic v Jiang [2021] NSWCATCD 39

The negotiations and communications established an agreement on 5 January 2021 for a 12 month residential tenancy at $500.00 per week. The draft lease showing 6 months was not a proposed variation of that agreement, and Ms Lin's later communications should be understood as agreeing to prepare a lease conforming to the 5 January 2021 agreement. Although the respondent was entitled to receive the holding deposit after approving the application, the statutory conditions for retaining it were not met because the applicants neither entered nor refused to enter the agreed 12 month tenancy; rather, the respondent refused to proceed with that agreement. The respondent's reasons for retention...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Holding Fee Dispute / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The applicants succeeded; the respondent was ordered to repay the $500.00 holding deposit immediately.
Legal Topics
['holding Fee' 'residential Tenancy Agreement' 'return of Holding Deposit' 'residential Tenancies Act 2010 (nsw)']
['residential Tenancies' 'consumer and Commercial'] ['holding Fee' 'residential Tenancy Agreement' 'return of Holding Deposit' 'residential Tenancies Act 2010 (nsw)']

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

Residential Tenancy Holding Fee Dispute / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants or the respondent were entitled to the return or retention of the $500.00 holding deposit.']

Ratio Decidendi

The negotiations and communications established an agreement on 5 January 2021 for a 12 month residential tenancy at $500.00 per week. The draft lease showing 6 months was not a proposed variation of that agreement, and Ms Lin's later communications should be understood as agreeing to prepare a lease conforming to the 5 January 2021 agreement. Although the respondent was entitled to receive the holding deposit after approving the application, the statutory conditions for retaining it were not met because the applicants neither entered nor refused to enter the agreed 12 month tenancy; rather, the respondent refused to proceed with that agreement. The respondent's reasons for retention...

Court Disposition

The applicants succeeded; the respondent was ordered to repay the $500.00 holding deposit immediately.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to pay the applicants the sum of $500.00 immediately.']