Evans v Saarman

Evans v Saarman involved a dispute between a tenant, Simon Evans, and a lessor, Pauline and Tony Saarman, under the Residential Tenancy Act 2010 (Vic). The tenant lodged a dispute resolution request with the Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) against the lessor for damages to a kitchen cabinet. However, the lessor did not lodge a dispute resolution request with the CAV. Instead, the lessor lodged separate claims with the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for compensation for damage to the property and a rent arrears claim. The primary issue before the court was whether the lessor could apply to the tribunal for compensation and whether there were grounds for leave to appeal.

The court held that the lessor was entitled to apply to the tribunal for compensation despite not lodging a dispute resolution request with the CAV. The court found that the lessor's claim for compensation was not a response to the tenant's dispute resolution request, but rather a separate claim for damages to the property. Additionally, the court found that there were grounds for leave to appeal as the decision of the tribunal had the potential to produce significant injustice to the lessor. The court held that the tribunal had erred in law by failing to consider the lessor's claim for compensation.

The appeal was allowed, and the order of the tribunal was amended to require the tenant to pay the lessor $20.00 by a specified date. Leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The tribunal's order was amended to reflect the court's decision.