Corcoran v Far - [2017] NSWCATCD 40

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Corcoran v Far [2017] NSWCATCD 40
Hearing dates: 8 May 2017
Decision date: 25 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: D G Charles, Senior Member
Decision:
1. Pursuant to s 175 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 NSW (“RTA”), within fourteen days of the date of this order, the respondent is to pay to the applicant the sum of $1,160.00, being the rental bond amount paid by the applicant to the respondent on or about 24 March 2016.
2. The applicant’s claim for compensation under s 187(1)(d) of the RTA is dismissed.
Catchwords: RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – disputes between head tenant and sub-tenant - monetary limit of Tribunal’s jurisdiction for compensation and rental bond claims – whether sub-tenant wrongfully locked out – exercise of Tribunal’s discretion in sub-tenant’s various compensation claims including non-economic loss
Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010 NSW
Residential Tenancies Regulation 2010 NSW
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW
Civil Liability Act 2002 NSW
Cases Cited: Corcoran v Far [2017] NSWCATAP 16
Gartell v Roth [2015] NSWCATAP 182
Roberts v NSW Aboriginal Housing Office [2017] NSWCATAP 9
Sharon v Diamond Bay Construction Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCTTT 682 (17 September 2003)
Texts Cited: Anforth Christensen Bentwood Residential Tenancies Law and Practice New South Wales 6th Edition
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Aaron Corcoran (applicant)
Peter Far (respondent)
Representation: Both parties were self - represented

File Number(s): RT 17/03857
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND FACTS & OVERVIEW OF ISSUES IN DISPUTE

This application was remitted by the Appeal Panel for hearing in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal on all issues in dispute between the applicant and the respondent. The Appeal Panel determined that there was a written residential tenancy agreement between the applicant as tenant and the respondent as landlord for the purposes of s 10(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 NSW (“RTA”) and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the RTA to hear and determine the application.
For the period from 24 March 2016 to 30 May 2016, the applicant occupied residential premises at Chippendale NSW (“premises”). The premises are a two level three (3) bedroom strata unit within a building of approximately 50 residential units.
On the lower level of the premises there is a foyer (at the entry), a bathroom and a stairwell (to the upper level), a master bedroom and en-suite bathroom, a second bedroom, and a courtyard (opening off the master bedroom and the second bedroom).
The upper level of the premises contains a kitchen and dining area, as well as a third bedroom. The floor area of the third bedroom was formerly a living room with terrace and balcony areas. There is also an area converted from a laundry into a bathroom containing toilet, vanity and shower.
At all material times, the applicant used the third bedroom on the upper level. During the period from 24 March 2016 to 30 May 2016, the other occupants of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Corcoran v Far

Details

AGLC: Corcoran v Far [2017] NSWCATCD 40
Case: [2017] NSWCATCD 40
Decision Date: 25 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in this matter arose between the applicant, Mr Corcoran, and the respondent, Ms Far. The applicant sought the return of his rental bond as well as compensation for various losses, including non-economic loss, in the amount of $20,000. The matter was heard in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), which has jurisdiction over residential tenancy disputes under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 NSW. The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the sub-tenant was wrongfully locked out and, if so, whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to award compensation for non-economic loss and other claims. The Tribunal held that it did not have the jurisdiction to award compensation for non-economic loss, as this was outside the monetary limit of its jurisdiction. The Tribunal further held that the sub-tenant was not wrongfully locked out, as she had vacated the premises of her own volition. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation, but ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $1,160, being the rental bond amount.

The Tribunal considered the legislative framework governing residential tenancy disputes in New South Wales, including the statutory provisions that confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to hear disputes between head tenants and sub-tenants. The Tribunal noted that the monetary limit of its jurisdiction for compensation claims is $10,000, and that this limit applies regardless of whether the claim is for economic or non-economic loss. The Tribunal held that the applicant’s claim for non-economic loss was therefore outside its jurisdiction. The Tribunal also considered the evidence adduced at the hearing, including the testimony of the parties and the documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the sub-tenant had vacated the premises of her own volition, and that she had not been locked out by the head tenant. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation, but ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $1,160, being the rental bond amount.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 175 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 NSW (“RTA”), within fourteen days of the date of this order, the respondent is to pay to the applicant the sum of $1,160.00, being the rental bond amount paid by the applicant to the respondent on or about 24 March 2016.

2. The applicant’s claim for compensation under s 187(1)(d) of the RTA is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Corcoran v Far [2017] NSWCATCD 40
Hearing dates:	8 May 2017
Decision date:	25 May 2017
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	D G Charles, Senior Member
Decision:	1. Pursuant to s 175 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 NSW (“RTA”), within fourteen days of the date of this order, the respondent is to pay to the applicant the sum of $1,160.00, being the rental bond amount paid by the applicant to the respondent on or about 24 March 2016. 2. The applicant’s claim for compensation under s 187(1)(d) of the RTA is dismissed.
Catchwords:	RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – disputes between head tenant and sub-tenant - monetary limit of Tribunal’s jurisdiction for compensation and rental bond claims – whether sub-tenant wrongfully locked out – exercise of Tribunal’s discretion in sub-tenant’s various compensation claims including non-economic loss
Legislation Cited:	Residential Tenancies Act 2010 NSW Residential Tenancies Regulation 2010 NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW Civil Liability Act 2002 NSW
Cases Cited:	Corcoran v Far [2017] NSWCATAP 16 Gartell v Roth [2015] NSWCATAP 182 Roberts v NSW Aboriginal Housing Office [2017] NSWCATAP 9 Sharon v Diamond Bay Construction Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCTTT 682 (17 September 2003)
Texts Cited:	Anforth Christensen Bentwood Residential Tenancies Law and Practice New South Wales 6th Edition
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Aaron Corcoran (applicant) Peter Far (respondent)
Representation:	Both parties were self - represented
File Number(s):	RT 17/03857
Publication restriction:	Unrestricted