NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest Issue 10 of 2025 |
The NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest provides monthly keyword summaries of decisions of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) Internal Appeal Panel.
This issue contains links to all the Appeal Panel decisions published in October 2025, as well as summaries of the following cases. |
Zhao v Furlong [2025] NSWCATAP 269: An Appeal Panel refused leave and dismissed an appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT, which had awarded a tenant a 50% rent reduction during periods when the property was affected by mould, together with damages for distress and disappointment. The landlords argued that NCAT miscalculated the compensation awarded and failed to consider a defence based on a purported settlement agreement. The Appeal Panel found no errors on questions of law and refused leave on all grounds, holding that there was insufficient evidence of a binding agreement, that the rent reduction was correctly calculated, and that the award of compensation was within NCAT’s discretion.
|
Archibald v Agustin [2025] NSWCATAP 275: In an appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT, a tenant challenged orders terminating a periodic tenancy under the “no grounds” provision under the then s 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). NCAT had not considered the tenant’s defence of a retaliatory termination under s 115, finding that it required a separate application. In allowing the appeal, the Appeal Panel held that s 115 can be raised in response to a termination application (see Chatterjee v Pandya [2024] NSWCATAP 85 at [65]) and this was a denial of procedural fairness which constituted an error on a question of law. The termination orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.
|
YMV v YNI [2025] NSWCATAP 261: An Appeal Panel refused leave to appeal from a decision in the Guardianship Division dismissing the appellant’s application for a financial management order for his mother, which he had applied for on three occasions based on diminished capacity. On appeal, the appellant challenged findings in two recent expert reports from a neuropsychologist, claiming that they were inconsistent with a 2021 neurologist’s report. NCAT found the opinions were complementary and concluded the mother retained capacity. The Appeal Panel held that there was no error, and it was reasonably open to NCAT to make that finding, noting that the neurologist did not assess the mother’s decision-making capacity. The Appeal Panel found that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects of success.
|
|
|
1. Did NCAT fail to engage with a defence of an alleged binding settlement between the parties? |
Zhao v Furlong [2025] NSWCATAP 269
K Robinson, Principal Member; Dr K George, Senior Member
In sum: The landlords (the appellants) of a rental property appealed a decision in the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT that awarded $5,921.42 to a tenant, being a 50% rent reduction during the period where the property was affected by mould and an additional amount of $1,000 for distress to the tenant. On appeal, the landlords, one of whom was a legal practitioner representing both himself and his spouse, alleged that NCAT fell into error by failing to take into account a defence they raised concerning an agreement between the parties, and the calculation of compensation. The Appeal Panel found no error on a question of law and refused leave on all grounds. The Appeal Panel held there was insufficient evidence of a binding a clear and concluded agreement, the rent reduction was properly considered in the reasons, and the Tribunal’s compensation award was within its discretion.
Facts: At first instance, NCAT found that the property was affected by mould from 18 August to 14 November 2023 and again in December 2023. On the evidence, NCAT found that it was reasonable for the appellants to assume that the matters were initially addressed on 20 November 2023. However, NCAT also found that the conduct of the appellants in addressing the mould issue was lacking as they are bound by the conduct of their agents. NCAT awarded a 50% rent reduction during the relevant periods, however there was insufficient evidence of mould after 15 December 2023 and no basis for compensation for personal items or medical impairment.
At the appeal hearing on 23 September 2025, one of the landlords Mr Zhao, who is a legal practitioner, represented himself and his spouse. The respondent was self-represented. In the first ground of appeal, the appellants submitted that NCAT failed to engage with a defence raised by them, namely that the parties had come to a binding settlement agreement which was set out in an exchange of emails between the appellant’s agent and the respondent. In the alternative to ground 1, the appellants argued that NCAT made an error by miscalculating the appropriate rent reduction because the Tribunal did not factor in that the appellants had already provided a 50% rent reduction for the period 26 October 2023 to 20 November 2023 and further the Tribunal conflated the rent reduction with compensation for distress and disappointment by offsetting between the sums calculated. The third ground of appeal argued that the compensation awarded was excessive and legally unreasonable.
Held (Refusing leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal):
(i) The Appeal Panel found that, based on the material tendered, there was insufficient evidence to establish a binding agreement between the parties as claimed by the appellants. The emails and text messages reflected ongoing interactions about changing circumstances without a clear, concluded bargain. Accordingly, there was no error on the part of NCAT at first instance and while the Appeal Panel considered that ground 1 raised a question of law, it was not made out.
(ii) On the second ground of appeal, the Appeal Panel determined not to adopt a “more generous or benevolent approach” in Kudrynski v Orange City Council [2024] NSWCA 33 at [50]-[51] to discern a question of law on this ground because, while Mr Zhao was representing himself, he was not a litigant without legal qualifications or experience. The Appeal Panel analysed NCAT’s reasons and found that the rent reduction already provided was “clearly acknowledged” and taken into account. The reasoning at first instance made clear that the practical result in terms of money payable to the respondent was the same whether the calculation considered the prior reduction as a rent reduction or as compensation. The appellants were not deprived of a "significant possibility" or a "chance which was fairly open" of achieving a different and more favourable outcome. Leave to appeal was refused on this ground.
(iii) The Appeal Panel found no error on a question of law and did not grant leave under the third ground of appeal, noting that comparable authority submitted by the appellants, where $2,500 in compensation was awarded, did not establish that it was legally unreasonable for the Tribunal to award the $1,000 amount of compensation in the exercise of its discretion in this case. |
2. Can a tenant rely on a ‘retaliatory termination’ defence under s 115 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) to an application by a landlord to terminate a residential tenancy agreement? |
Archibald v Agustin [2025] NSWCATAP 275
P Durack SC, Senior Member; N Kennedy, Senior Member
In sum: In an appeal of a residential tenancy matter from the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT, the tenant challenged the first instance decision to terminate his periodic tenancy under the “no grounds” provision in the then s 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (RT Act). The tenant argued that NCAT failed to properly consider his defence of retaliatory eviction which was mistakenly treated as requiring a separate claim. This misunderstanding resulted in a denial of procedural fairness and a lost opportunity for the defence to be determined. The Appeal Panel found that there was an error on a question of law, allowed the appeal, set aside the termination orders, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
Facts: The tenant has occupied the unit for some 11 years. On 6 November 2025, the landlord issued a no-grounds termination notice requiring vacant possession by 5 February 2025. The first instance hearing on the termination application occurred on 1 May 2025. The tenant attempted to challenge the termination notice on the grounds that it was retaliatory, pursuant to s 115 of the RT Act, of a stance the tenant had taken in October 2024 concerning a rusty stove. NCAT declined to consider the retaliatory defence and indicated to the tenant that he needed to make a separate application claiming that the termination was retaliatory. NCAT went on to consider the termination claim and made an order terminating the residential tenancy agreement under s 83 of the RT Act. NCAT then made an order to suspend the operation of an order for possession for a specified period, on the basis that it was satisfied it was “desirable to do so, having regard to the relative hardship likely to be caused to the landlord and tenant by the suspension.” On appeal, the tenant raised a question of law with regard to procedural fairness in respect of the issue of whether the termination notice was retaliatory.
Held (Appeal upheld and proceeding remitted for reconsideration in NCAT):
(i) The Appeal Panel considered the case of Chatterjee v Pandya [2024] NSWCATAP 85 (Chatterjee) at [65] where an Appeal Panel said that “as a matter of statutory construction, s 115 of the RT Act can be raised as a response to an application by a landlord to terminate a tenancy irrespective whether or not the tenant filed proceedings in the Tribunal under s 115(3) of the RT Act.” In this case, the Appeal Panel found that had NCAT recognised that the defence of retaliation could be pursued without a separate claim and therefore considered the tenant’s statement, the tenant had an arguable defence. The refusal to consider s 115 resulted in a lost opportunity for the tenant to present legal arguments and evidence that could have resulted in a different outcome. The Appeal Panel found that this was a denial of procedural fairness and an error on a question of law.
(ii) As an error on a question of law had been established, it was unnecessary for the Appeal Panel to consider the remaining grounds of appeal. |
3. Did NCAT err in concluding that a subject-person retained capacity where two expert reports had different conclusions? |
YMV v YNI [2025] NSWCATAP 261
A Britton, Deputy President; I Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; L Porter, General Member (Community)
In sum: In an appeal from the Guardianship Division of NCAT where an application for a financial management order was dismissed, an Appeal Panel refused leave to appeal on the basis that the application had no reasonable prospects of success. The appellant (the son) applied three times for a financial management order under the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW), asserting that his mother (the mother) lacked capacity to manage her finances. The son challenged a neuropsychologist’s comprehensive assessments in 2023 and 2024 that confirmed the mother’s capacity; arguing that the reports were inconsistent with an earlier 2021 neurologist’s report. NCAT at first instance had found that the reports were “complementary” and the mother retained capacity to manage her financial affairs. The Appeal Panel held that NCAT’s conclusion was reasonably open on the evidence and rejected this ground of appeal because it relied on the flawed premise that the neurologist’s report assessed the mother’s capacity, which he had conceded, it did not.
Facts: The mother is in her mid-seventies, and the son is her only child. In 2019, the mother moved to Sydney to live with her sister (the sister) and in 2023 moved into a low-level residential aged care facility, where she still resides. The mother had previously appointed her son and sister together under an enduring power of attorney, however she later revoked the appointment and in November 2024 appointed the sister and her brother-in-law as her attorneys to act jointly. Following two earlier applications to the Guardianship Division in January and May 2024 seeking a financial management order, the son made a further application in November 2024 requesting a financial management order be made under the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) in respect of his mother. The applications centred on the son’s assertion that the mother lacked capacity to manage her financial affairs and to revoke his appointment as her attorney.
At first instance, NCAT considered in detail three reports: a report of Dr Halpern, a neurologist dated April 2021, which noted imaging “suggestive of mild Alzheimer’s” but did not assess capacity; and two reports of Dr Breen, a neuropsychologist, dated September 2023 and June 2024. Dr Breen found that the mother had decision-making capacity for financial decisions, requiring only minor support for daily tasks, and confirmed that there was no cognitive impairment that would require the enactment of an enduring power of attorney. The Guardianship Division dismissed the son’s application and concluded, based on expert evidence and the mother’s engagement with questions during the hearing, that the mother retained capacity to manage her financial affairs. Importantly, NCAT concluded that the opinions of Drs Halpern and Breen were “complementary with different focuses attributable to their different disciplines”.
The son appealed the decision. On appeal, the mother submitted that the son’s assertion that she lacks capacity to manage her financial affairs is inconsistent with the expert’s opinion and the son’s actions in requesting and accepting substantial gifts of money from her over the past 18 months. She also submitted that the appeal is unmeritorious.
Held (Refusing leave to appeal on the basis that the appeal is unmeritorious and has no reasonable prospects of success and dismissing the appeal):
(i) The son’s first ground of appeal challenged NCAT’s finding that the expert opinions were “complementary.” The Appeal Panel held this argument rested on the flawed premise that Dr Halpern had assessed the mother’s decision-making capacity. In fact, Dr Halpern neither assessed nor expressed an opinion on the mother’s current capacity, whereas Dr Breen’s view that the mother did have capacity was based on a comprehensive cognitive assessment. The Appeal Panel noted that the son appeared to concede before the Tribunal that the mother did not go to Dr Halpern for a capacity test (see [50]). The Appeal Panel held that is was reasonably open for NCAT to reach the conclusion it did on the evidence. This ground was dismissed. (ii) In the second ground of appeal, the son claimed Dr Breen ignored “critical” facts, including an alleged “debilitating stroke”, and Dr Halpern’s report. The Appeal Panel found that there was no medical evidence consistent with a stroke and noted that, while Dr Breen mentioned investigations by Dr Halpern, her list of materials relied on did not include Dr Halpern’s report. The Appeal Panel concluded that this ground failed as it relied on the flawed assumption that Dr Halpern assessed the mother’s capacity.
(iii) The son also argued that Dr Breen relied on “material falsehoods,” namely that AVOs had been taken out against him by the mother’s former solicitor and accountant. The Appeal Panel noted this reference appeared in Dr Breen’s summary of the mother’s interview and in her concluding remarks about concerns of coercion. While the mother conceded the statement concerning AVOs was inaccurate, the Appeal Panel found that there was ample evidence from both parties that the son had threatened the mother’s former solicitor and accountant. The Appeal Panel agreed with the mother’s submission that Dr Breen’s statement in relation to AVOs was not relevant to the assessment of the mother’s decision-making capacity. (iv) The son also sought to rely on “fresh evidence” on appeal which he contended warranted the exercise of the discretion under s 80(2)(b) of the NCAT Act. The fresh evidence was said to establish deceitful conduct of the sister and the mother’s solicitors in attempts to frustrate the son’s relationship with the mother. The Appeal Panel refused leave to rely on the “fresh evidence” noting that the material was available to the son at first instance and he failed to provide a reason for why he did not provide the material at the first instance hearing. It was also observed that the material had no apparent relevance, and it was not highly probable that the evidence would have produced a different result at first instance.
(v) In refusing leave to appeal, the Appeal Panel held that “[a]t best, the grounds advanced by the appellant represent an expression of disagreement, based on his subjective belief, with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that it was not satisfied that the mother lacked capacity to manage her financial affairs. The proposed appeal is entirely unmeritorious and has no reasonable prospects of success”. |
|
|
Revive Kitchens & Bathrooms Pty Ltd v Crome [2025] NSWCATAP 244 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division
Decision of: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member; D Goldstein, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – whether appeal raised a question of law – no question of principle – whether appeal raises an error warranting a grant of leave – no question of principle – appeals of interlocutory decisions – no question of principle |
|
Baluri v The Owners – Strata Plan No 11258 [2025] NSWCATAP 246 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division
Decision of: G K Burton SC, Senior Member; M Tibbey, Senior Member Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY – STRATA MANAGEMENT – owners corporation’s strict duty to maintain and repair common property –alleged damage to lot property from alleged breach of duty – measure of damage to lot property when renovations occurred – whether relevant pipes were common property -Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) s 106 - Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) s 4 |
|
|
Polamarasetty v Denny [2025] NSWCATAP 249 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division
Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; N Kennedy, Senior Member Catchwords: JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS —— Consent orders- appeal seeks to set aside consent orders made in primary proceedings – lack of proof of circumstances relied upon. |
Reed v Brown [2025] NSWCATAP 250 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division
Decision of: G K Burton SC, Senior Member; H Woods, Senior Member Catchwords: BUILDING and CONSTRUCTION – HOME BUILDING – COSTS – Calderbank offers – reasonableness of rejection – APPEALS – challenge to discretionary decision – question of law – errors of law and of fact – re-exercise of discretion |
Tiglin Constructions Pty Ltd v Warhurst [2025] NSWCATAP 251 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Decision of: K Robinson, Principal Member; EA MacIntyre, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL - right of appeal - question of law - factual findings - leave to appeal - reasons DISCRIMINATION - review by Civil and Administrative Tribunal – evidence – proof |
Secretary, Department of Customer Service v Marino [2025] NSWCATAP 252 Appeal from the Occupational Division Decision of: K Ransome, Principal Member; J Redfern, Senior Member Catchwords: COSTS – successful appeal against decision at first instance – whether special circumstances – whether unreasonable refusal to accept settlement offer – relevant factors |
Sage v The Owners – Strata Plan No 81440 [2025] NSWCATAP 253 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division
Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; J Gatland, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS – whether appeal raised a question of law – no question of principle – whether appeal raises an error warranting a grant of leave – no question of principle COSTS – special circumstances – exercise of discretion - no question of principle |
|
|
Perkins v Link Wentworth Housing Limited [2025] NSWCATAP 256 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division
Decision of: K Ransome, Principal Member; J McAteer, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – orders for access by landlord to premises – denial of procedural fairness – transcript or sound recording not provided – no evidence of unfairness |
Sebie v Abret Pty Limited [2025] NSWCATAP 257 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division
Decision of: S de Jersey, Principal Member; Dr K M George, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES – decision not fair and equitable - validity of rent increase – withdrawal of consent for electronic service of notices – daily occupation fee |
YFP v Public Guardian [2025] NSWCATAP 258 Appeal from the Guardianship Division
Decision of: A Britton, Deputy President; S Handebo, Principal Member (Legal); C M Kennedy, Senior Member (Professional) Catchwords: GUARDIANSHIP — whether the Tribunal misapplied ss 15(3), 17(1) of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) — whether Tribunal satisfied proposed guardian “able to exercise the functions conferred or imposed by the proposed guardianship order” GUARDIANSHIP — whether the Tribunal misapplied s 4(d) of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) — whether Tribunal obliged to give effect to views of the person the subject of a guardianship order LEAVE TO APPEAL — principles governing exercise of discretion to give leave to appeal from decision made by NCAT — whether conclusion that Tribunal was not satisfied that proposed guardian was “able to exercise the functions conferred or imposed by the proposed guardianship order” was against the weight of evidence EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL — Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 41 — principles governing exercise of discretion to extend time to appeal |
McEachern v Alcock [2025] NSWCATAP 259 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division
Decision of: G K Burton SC, Senior Member; H Woods, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS — Leave to appeal — Principles governing APPEALS — leave to appeal because decision at first instance not fair and equitable or against the weight of evidence |
Miles v Buildfix Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 260 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division
Decision of: S De Jersey, Principal Member; R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – meaning of the implied warranties under ss 18B(1)(e) and (f) of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – whether expanded scope or application by reason of giving the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) a purposeful or beneficial interpretation |
YMV v YNI [2025] NSWCATAP 261 Appeal from the Guardianship Division
Decision of: A Britton, Deputy President; I Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member; L Porter, General Member (Community) Catchwords: APPEALS – NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal – internal appeals – principles governing exercise of the discretion to grant leave to appeal from an internally appealable decision under s 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) EXPERT EVIDENCE – assumptions on which expert based their opinion FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – precondition to exercise power to make financial management order s 25G Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW)– whether tribunal is satisfied that the person is not capable of managing their affairs FRESH EVIDENCE – test in Agripower Barraba Pty Ltd v Blomfield (2015) 317 ALR 202; [2015] NSWCA 30 – appellant’s proposed evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence in the original proceedings and is of no apparent relevance |
|
SPL Living Pty Ltd v JAM Super Property Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWCATAP 263 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division
Decision of: A Bell SC, Senior Member; M Deane, Senior Member Catchwords: COSTS - Appeals – whether determination of costs application should be deferred pending determination of costs application in proceedings below COSTS – Appeals - s 60 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act -Each party to proceedings to pay own costs – whether there are special circumstances warranting an award of costs in the appeal. |
Nobrega v Chavez [2025] NSWCATAP 264 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Robertson, Principal Member; J McAteer, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEALS — Question of law — Procedural fairness — Failure to attend hearing — Appellant claiming that misled by staff of Tribunal Registry to believe that hearing adjourned — Denial of procedural fairness not established without evidence to support explanation for non-attendance LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Condition reports — Fair wear and tear |
|
|
Hodgson v Shaw [2025] NSWCATAP 267 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; Dr K M George, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – set aside - whether a real likelihood of injustice if the decision was allowed to stand |
Sage v The Owners – Strata Plan No 81440 (No 2) [2025] NSWCATAP 268 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Blake AM SC, Principal Member; J Gatland, Senior Member Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Suppression and non-publication – where Appellant seeks to have publication of decision restricted or her name anonymised – whether it is “desirable” to make orders |
Vlassenko v The Fraternity of the Holy Cross [2025] NSWCATAP 270 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: S de Jersey, Principal Member; Dr K George, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES – whether notice of termination was retaliatory in part – whether the wrong test under s 115 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) was applied – whether decision not fair and equitable – whether decision against the weight of evidence – absence of transcript of hearing |
Huang v Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 271 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: J Redfern PSM, Senior Member; D Goldstein, Senior Member Catchwords: APPEAL – Home Building – Australian Consumer Law claims – claims about unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms – whether Amended Grounds of Appeal raise questions of law – grounds not established – appeal seeks to raise new claims |
El Rifi v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2025] NSWCATAP 272 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; Dr K George, Senior Member Catchwords: LANDLORD and TENANT-residential tenancy-order under s 90 (1) (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (RTA) to terminate a social housing tenancy- allegation that the tenant intentionally or recklessly caused injury with a knife to an occupier on neighbouring property-Tribunal preferred landlord’s version of events as put forward in witness statements from the alleged victim, his brothers and girlfriend to competing evidence from tenant-whether the relevant event occurred on “neighbouring property” as required by s 90 (1) (b)-whether termination was mandatory or discretionary according to the application of s154D (2) and (3) of the RTA- exercise of the discretion under s154E of the RTA. APPEAL-whether errors of law-whether the Tribunal erred by not applying the Briginshaw principles- whether the Tribunal misconstrued relevant parts of s 154D- proceedings remitted to the Tribunal, differently constituted, for redetermination |
Griffinchuk No 1 Pty Ltd ATF Griffinchuk Family Trust v The Owners – Strata Plan No 92745 [2025] NSWCATAP 273 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member; D Goldstein, Senior Member Catchwords: LAND LAW – strata title – meaning of s 226 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) APPEALS - whether decision of the Registrar of the Consumer and commercial Division of the Tribunal is an “internally reviewable” decision for the purposes of s 80 of Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) |
Webb v Shardana Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 274 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: G Sarginson, Deputy President Catchwords: APPEALS – Procedure – Application for interim stay – Whether arguable grounds of appeal – Whether balance of convenience in favour of stay |
Archibald v Agustin [2025] NSWCATAP 275 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: P Durack SC, Senior Member; N Kennedy, Senior Member Catchwords: LANDLORD and TENANT- residential tenancy- no grounds termination of periodic tenancy – retaliation as a basis for refusal for making a termination order under s 115(1)(b) rather than as a separate claim. APPEALS — Error on a question of law — Procedural fairness — Retaliatory eviction — Issue raised by Tenant at hearing but Tribunal misunderstood that it did not need to be the subject of a separate claim – lost opportunity to have defence heard and determined— Whether denial of procedural fairness |
Pellatt v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAP 276 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: D Robertson, Principal Member; D Goldstein, Senior Member Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – Enforcement and remedies – The requirement for the appellant to establish that he was a ‘consumer’ as defined in s79D of the Fair Trading Act 1987 for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction – The requirement for a ‘supplier’ as defined in section 79D of the Fair Trading Act 1987 to have supplied goods or services to the appellant for him to be a ‘consumer’ as defined in section 79D of the Fair Trading Act 1987 - Meaning of ‘direct supplier’ in section 79E(2) of the Fair Trading Act 1987 |
Herbert v Zhang [2025] NSWCATAP 277 Appeal from the Consumer and Commercial Division Decision of: J Ledda, Senior Member Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — termination notice for non-payment of rent — relevance of rental bond to determining arrears APPEAL — obligation of party to lodge material relied on — consequences of failure by appellant to lodge transcript or recording of hearing below |
FZK v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (No 4) [2025] NSWCATAP 278 Appeal from the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision of: Seiden SC DCJ, Deputy President; H J Dixon SC, Senior Member Catchwords: Costs – costs of appeal where appeal dismissed – special circumstances established – whether appropriate to make a lump sum order for costs – quantification of lump sum amount – costs awarded |
|
DISCLAIMER: This publication has been prepared for information purposes only. The NCAT Appeal Panel Decisions Digest should not be relied on as legal advice nor is it a substitute for reading the decisions in full. NCAT does not accept any liability to any person for the information (or the use of the information) which is provided in this publication. |
