Huang v Helou - [2025] VSC 212

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2024 02536

KAI HUANG	Applicant
v
MATTHEW HELOU	First Respondent
and
NATALIE HELOU	Second Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Finanzio J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 April 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 April 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Huang v Helou
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 212

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Appeal from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) pursuant to s 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) — Dispute between residential rental provider (‘landlord’) and renter (‘tenant’) following break of lease — Where Tribunal dismissed part of landlord’s claim and off-set other part as against renter’s cross-claim — Landlord’s appeal — Consideration of Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) — No neglect of mandatory considerations — No failure to exercise jurisdiction — No error of law established — Leave to appeal refused.

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) s 148; Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) ss 75, 210, 211, 211A, 419A, 452.

---

APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant	Mr Huang, in person
For the Respondents	Mr Helou, in person

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application for leave to appeal from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) concerning a dispute between a landlord, Kai Huang (‘Applicant’) and tenants, Matthew and Natalie Helou (‘Respondents’).

In VCAT the Applicant claimed monies arising from the decision of the tenants to break the lease. The Respondents cross-claimed for reimbursement of rent paid on the basis that the property was in a poor condition. They also claimed for return of their bond in full.

It is apparent from the Tribunal’s orders that it made findings which resulted in the offset of each claim against the other, with the result that the bond monies were largely distributed to the renters, save for the Respondents being required to pay $69 to the Applicant towards the cost of reletting the property. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal from the decision of the Tribunal.

Background

The decision of the Tribunal does not record its reasons nor does it set out detailed factual findings. Neither is there a useful recording of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Applicant sought to obtain a transcript of the hearing, but the transcript records that intrusive background noise prevented transcription a short time after the hearing commenced.

It follows that the written record of proceedings before the Tribunal is confined to the written submissions and documents before the Tribunal (established by affidavit in these proceedings), and the orders of the Tribunal.

This Court was assisted by having all of the documents which were before VCAT at the time of the hearing.

The Applicant owns land in Manchester Street, Hawthorn (‘the property’) which he offers for rent. To assist him in that task, he engaged the services of a real estate agency, Elever Property Group, and the agent Michael…

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 Huang v Helou

Details

AGLC: Huang v Helou [2025] VSC 212
Case: [2025] VSC 212
Decision Date: 29 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Huang v Helou, the plaintiff, as the landlord, sought to recover damages from the defendant, the tenant, following a break of lease. The matter was initially heard by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), which dismissed part of the landlord's claim and offset another part against the tenant's cross-claim. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision, the landlord appealed to a higher court. The appeal centred on the Tribunal's jurisdiction and whether it had correctly applied the law in dismissing the landlord's claim and offsetting the cross-claim.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had neglected to consider mandatory considerations, whether there was a failure to exercise jurisdiction, and whether any error of law had occurred. The court considered these issues in light of relevant statutory provisions under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic), including sections 75, 210, 211, 211A, 419A, and 452. The court examined the Tribunal's reasoning and findings to determine whether any procedural or substantive errors had been made.

Upon reviewing the Tribunal's decision, the court found that there had been no neglect of mandatory considerations, no failure to exercise jurisdiction, and no error of law. The court was satisfied with the Tribunal's application of the relevant statutes and its reasoning process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The outcome upheld the Tribunal's decision, which had dismissed part of the landlord's claim and offset another part against the tenant's cross-claim.

Orders