Park v Saechun

In Park v Saechun, the parties were involved in a dispute regarding a residential tenancy agreement for the lower level of a two-storey house. The applicant, Park, permitted the respondent, Saechun, to build a separate room for conducting a massage business despite the building classification prohibiting such occupancy. The respondent was ordered to refund all rent, the cost of the new room, painting costs, and the bond to Park. The respondent appealed the decision, arguing there was an error of law in the refund order and that the payment of rent did not constitute unjust enrichment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the refund of rent constituted unjust enrichment, if there was an error of law in the original order, and if the findings of fact were open to challenge. The court held that the legal impediment provided the respondent with the right to terminate the tenancy agreement but did not entitle her to a refund of rent paid. The court found that the order for the refund of rent was an error of law and that the respondent was entitled to the bond held by the Residential Tenancy Authority.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the original order for the refund of $16,479.50. Instead, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $4,129.50, which includes the extra two weeks rent paid, cost of the new room, painting costs, and the bond. The court clarified that the applicant’s only entitlement was $4,129.50, and if any excess amount had been paid, it would be up to the applicant to recover it from the respondent. The final orders included granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal, and setting aside the original order, with a new order for the applicant to pay the respondent $4,129.50.