Glashoff v Wylie - [2020] NSWCATCD 15

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Glashoff v Wylie [2020] NSWCATCD 15
Hearing dates: 10 January 2020
Date of orders: 30 January 2020
Decision date: 30 January 2020
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: S McDonald, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) In respect of Rental Bond No. K990907‑3, the Tribunal orders that Rental Bond Services is to pay the sum of $800.00 to the landlord, Sean Glashoff, and that the balance of the rental bond including any interest is to be paid to the tenants Annabel Wylie, Lucy Watson, James Cameron and Jack Patrick.

Catchwords:
LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential tenancy —Claim for compensation by landlord — Frozen bond

Legislation Cited:
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Harris v Hill [2015] NSWCATCD 84
Westpac General Insurance Limited v Cooper [2006] ASTSC 91

Texts Cited:
Anforth on Residential Tenancies, Law and Practice, NSW, 6th Edition pp. 132-134

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Sean Glashoff (Applicant)
Annabel Wylie (First Respondent)
Lucy Watson (Second Respondent)
James Cameron (Third Respondent)
Jack Patrick (Fourth Respondent)
Representation: J Fazzari (Power of Attorney) (Applicant)
First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondent (Self-represented)

File Number(s): RT 19/49186
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

This is an application by the landlord of residential premises (Landlord) at XX Morton Avenue, Lewisham, NSW, 2049 (Property) for compensation pursuant to s.175 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (Act) against the Respondents (Tenants) arising from a residential tenancy agreement (RTA) of the Property from the period of 4 May 2018 until approximately 17 October 2019 inclusive.
The RTA ran for a period of 12 months until 3 May 2019 at rental of $1,000.00 per week. At the conclusion of the term it then ran month‑to‑month at rental of $1,100.00 per week rent until its conclusion. The Tenants paid a rental bond of $4,000.00 which is 4 weeks’ rent at the original rental in the RTA. The rental bond no. K990907‑3 remained at that sum throughout the tenancy until the Tenants left the Property on or about 17 October 2019.
The Landlord has disputed that the rental bond should be returned to the Tenants and has filed this application in the Tribunal contesting the sum of $3,395.11 of the rental bond. The Tenants have not filed an application seeking a return of their rental bond but have filed evidence in the Landlord’s application disputing the Landlord’s claim for $3,395.11 of the rental bond and seeking a return of the rental bond in full.

Preliminary matters

A rental bond for the rent of residential premises is, of course, the tenants’ money. If, as in this instance, the return of the rental bond to the Tenants is disputed, then the onus lies with the Landlord in establishing why it is that the Tenants should not receive a full refund of their bond. Similarly, in any claim for compensation pursuant to s.175 of the Act, the Landlord carries the onus of proving that he is entitled…

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 Glashoff v Wylie

Details

AGLC: Glashoff v Wylie [2020] NSWCATCD 15
Case: [2020] NSWCATCD 15
Decision Date: 30 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Glashoff v Wylie involved a dispute over a rental bond held by Rental Bond Services. The landlord, Sean Glashoff, sought compensation from the tenants, Annabel Wylie, Lucy Watson, James Cameron and Jack Patrick, following their departure from the property. The primary issue before the court was the disposition of a rental bond held by the bond holder, Rental Bond Services. The tenants had vacated the property and left it in a clean condition, but the landlord claimed there were outstanding debts for utilities and repairs, which the tenants disputed.

The court had to determine whether the landlord's claims for compensation were justified and, if so, how the bond should be distributed. The tenants argued that since they left the property in a clean state, they should receive the full bond back. The landlord, on the other hand, asserted that the tenants were liable for certain costs and, therefore, the bond should be partially retained by the landlord to cover these expenses. The court examined the evidence presented regarding the condition of the property and the outstanding debts to resolve this contention.

After considering the evidence, the court found that the tenants had left the property in an acceptable condition and that the landlord's claims for compensation were not substantiated. Consequently, the court ordered that the full rental bond, including any accrued interest, be returned to the tenants. The court held that the bond holder, Rental Bond Services, must pay the landlord $800.00 from the bond, with the remaining balance to be returned to the tenants. This decision underscores the importance of clear documentation and evidence in disputes over rental bonds and the need for landlords to substantiate any claims for compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) In respect of Rental Bond No. K990907‑3, the Tribunal orders that Rental Bond Services is to pay the sum of $800.00 to the landlord, Sean Glashoff, and that the balance of the rental bond including any interest is to be paid to the tenants Annabel Wylie, Lucy Watson, James Cameron and Jack Patrick.

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:	Glashoff v Wylie [2020] NSWCATCD 15
Hearing dates:	10 January 2020
Date of orders:	30 January 2020
Decision date:	30 January 2020
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	S McDonald, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) In respect of Rental Bond No. K990907‑3, the Tribunal orders that Rental Bond Services is to pay the sum of $800.00 to the landlord, Sean Glashoff, and that the balance of the rental bond including any interest is to be paid to the tenants Annabel Wylie, Lucy Watson, James Cameron and Jack Patrick.
Catchwords:	LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential tenancy —Claim for compensation by landlord — Frozen bond
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Harris v Hill [2015] NSWCATCD 84 Westpac General Insurance Limited v Cooper [2006] ASTSC 91
Texts Cited:	Anforth on Residential Tenancies, Law and Practice, NSW, 6th Edition pp. 132-134
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Sean Glashoff (Applicant) Annabel Wylie (First Respondent) Lucy Watson (Second Respondent) James Cameron (Third Respondent) Jack Patrick (Fourth Respondent)
Representation:	J Fazzari (Power of Attorney) (Applicant) First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondent (Self-represented)
File Number(s):	RT 19/49186
Publication restriction:	Nil