Lewin v Zhou

Case [2018] NSWCATCD 54

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lewin v Zhou [2018] NSWCATCD 54
Hearing dates: 10 September 2018
Date of orders: 03 October 2018
Decision date: 03 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: J Rose, General Member
Decision:

(1) The respondent, Beilei Zhou of C/- Century 21 Real Estate Carlingford, 314 Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford NSW 2118 is to pay the applicants, Hank and Nipaporn Lewin of 2 Paul Place, Carlingford NSW 2118, the sum of $50 within 28 days.

 (2) The application is otherwise dismissed because, having considered the material placed before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied (at the civil standard of proof) that the grounds required to make the orders sought have been established.
Catchwords: LANDLORD AND TENANT - residential tenancies legislation - other matters
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Regulation 2010 (NSW)
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015
Cases Cited: Bhandari v Laming [2015] NSWCATAP 224
Ciesiolka v Department of Housing NSW [2010] NSWCTTT 497
De Soleil v Palmhide Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCTTT 462
Finn v Finato [2004] NSWCTTT 179
Flight Centre v Janice Low [2011] NSWSC 132
Glasshouse Investments Pty Ltd v MPJ Holdings Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 456
Gray v Queensland Housing Commission [2004] QSC 276
Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC 170
Hampel v South Australian Housing Trust [2007] SADC 64
Insight Vacations Pty Ltd v Young (2010) NSWCA 137
Kuek v Butterfield [2004] NSWCTTT 210
McC v Director of Housing [2009] VCAT 2748
McLachlan v Patfield (Tenancy) [2013] NSWCTTT 171
McLeish v FT Eastment & Sons Pty. Ltd (1970) 91 WN (NSW) 268
Melnik v Gudde [2009] NSWCTTT 664
Morgan v Liverpool Corporation [1927] 2 KB 131
Proudfoot v Hart (1890) 25 QBD 42
Roberts v Bell [2001] NSWRT 6
Shirvington v Commonwealth (No 2) [2015] FCCA 522
Southwark LBC v Tanner [2001] AC 1
Stuart v Colley [2005] NSWCTTT 683
Summers v Salford Corporation [1943] AC 283
Texts Cited: Black’s Law Dictionary
Concise Macquarie Dictionary
The Price of Quiet enjoyment (1999) 7 APLJ 155
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Hank and Nipaporn Lewin (Applicants)

  Beilei Zhou (Respondent)
Representation:

Self-represented (Applicants)

  Aileen Holden and Penny Jiang, property managers (Respondent)
File Number(s): RT 18/23210
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. The applicants (the Tenants) are the former tenants of a strata-title apartment at Carlingford (the Premises). The respondent (the Landlord) is the owner of the apartment, and their former landlord. the Landlord was represented at all times by Century 21 Real Estate in Carlingford (the Agents).

  2. The Premises is unit 5 in an apartment complex named “The Image”. By a residential tenancy agreement dated 25 January 2018, the Tenants let the Premises from the Landlord for a period of 12 months, commencing on 12 February 2018 and scheduled to terminate on 11 February 2019 (the tenancy agreement).

  3. The Tenants sent the Agents an email on 5 March 2018, claiming…

Continue reading Lewin v Zhou

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lewin v Zhou [2018] NSWCATCD 54
Case
[2018] NSWCATCD 54
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lewin v Zhou involved the applicants, Hank and Nipaporn Lewin, who sought a remedy from the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. They sought to recover an amount of $150 from the respondent, Beilei Zhou, a real estate agent associated with Century 21 Real Estate Carlingford. The applicants alleged that the respondent had failed to pay them a refund of their security deposit upon the termination of their residential tenancy. The dispute arose from the applicants' contention that the respondent had not returned their security deposit within the required time frame, as mandated by the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants had established, on the civil standard of proof, that the respondent had failed to return their security deposit within the time frame stipulated by the Act. The Tribunal had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and determine if the applicants' claim was substantiated by the material provided. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the refund had been made or that the applicants had not fulfilled certain conditions required for the return of the deposit.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal carefully examined the evidence presented by the applicants, including correspondence and bank statements. However, the Tribunal found that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the respondent had not returned the security deposit within the required period. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, as it was not satisfied that the applicants had met the civil standard of proof regarding their claim. The Tribunal did, however, order the respondent to pay the applicants $50 for costs incurred in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The respondent, Beilei Zhou of C/- Century 21 Real Estate Carlingford, 314 Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford NSW 2118 is to pay the applicants, Hank and Nipaporn Lewin of 2 Paul Place, Carlingford NSW 2118, the sum of $50 within 28 days.

(2) The application is otherwise dismissed because, having considered the material placed before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied (at the civil standard of proof) that the grounds required to make the orders sought have been established.

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.