Qiang v Cohen [2019] NSWCATAP 146
The Appeal Panel found no error of law in the Tribunal's reasons, was satisfied the landlord's obligations to repair were breached, and determined that findings as to excessive rent due to want of repair were open on the evidence. The appeal grounds did not meet the threshold for leave, as the findings were not unfair or against the weight of evidence.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 June 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Merits Determination
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- ['rent Reduction' "landlord's Repair Obligations" 'extension of Time on Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Merits Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal the rent reduction order' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in ordering a rent reduction due to the state of repair of the premises' 'Whether procedural fairness was afforded to the landlord' "Whether the Tribunal's findings were against the weight of evidence"]
Ratio Decidendi
The Appeal Panel found no error of law in the Tribunal's reasons, was satisfied the landlord's obligations to repair were breached, and determined that findings as to excessive rent due to want of repair were open on the evidence. The appeal grounds did not meet the threshold for leave, as the findings were not unfair or against the weight of evidence.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused
Orders
- ['Leave is granted to extend time to file the Notice of Appeal to 12 March 2019.' 'Leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']
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