Shapkin v Lorenzato

Case [2022] NSWCATCD 67


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Shapkin v Lorenzato [2022] NSWCATCD 67
Hearing dates: 6 April 2022
Date of orders: 8 April 2022
Decision date: 08 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: G Blake AM SC, Senior Member
Decision:

(1)   The proceedings are dismissed.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Renewal of proceedings – Whether the respondent failed to comply with order of the Tribunal – Whether any other appropriate order should be made – Proceedings dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Blessed Sydney Constructions Pty Ltd v Vasudevan [2018] NSWCATAP 98

Flanagan v Bernasconi [2022] NSWSC 381

Goode v Angland (2017) 96 NSWLR 503; [2017] NSWCA 311

McLean v Power [2013] NSWSC 193

Mehr v Lau [2022] NSWCATAP 15

Minifie v Maxwell [2020] NSWCATAP 30

Smits v Loel [2014] FCA 1341

Smits v Loel (No 3) [2015] FCA 77

X-Build Construction Services Pty Ltd v O’Rourke [2020] NSWCATAP 181

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Vasiliy Shapkin (Applicant)
Angele Lorenzato (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)
N Minaway (Respondent)
File Number(s): RT 22/14212
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

  1. In these renewed proceedings the applicant, Vasiliy Shapkin, who is the tenant, seeks relief under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (RT Act) against the respondent, Angele Lorenzato, who is the landlord, of premises situated in a multi-storey building at Liverpool (the premises) under a residential tenancy agreement between them by reason of the alleged failure of the respondent to comply with certain orders made by the Tribunal on 1 March 2022 in proceedings RT 22/06803 (the RT 22/06803 proceedings) as varied on 25 March 2022 by the Appeal Panel in proceedings 2022/00074365 (the 2022/00074365 proceedings).

  2. I have decided that the renewed proceedings should be dismissed.

The factual background

  1. As at 25 March 2022 the following proceedings commenced by the tenant against the landlord in relation to disputes about the residential tenancy agreement were pending before the Tribunal:

  1. proceedings RT 21/43089 (the RT 21/43089 proceedings);

  2. proceedings RT 21/519769 (the RT 21/519769 proceedings);

  3. proceedings RT 22/06840 (the RT 22/06840 proceedings);

  4. proceedings RT 22/12130 (the RT 22/12130 proceedings);

  5. proceedings RT 22/12441 (the RT 22/12441 proceedings).

The RT 22/06803 proceedings

  1. On 16 February 2022, the landlord as the applicant commenced the RT 22/06803 proceedings against the tenant as the respondent by filing an application seeking a termination order and a possession order on various grounds under ss 87, 90, 92, 93, 95 and 187 of the RT Act.

  2. On 1 March 2022, the Tribunal published its decision in which it:

  1. made the following orders (the 1 March 2022 orders):

“1. The Residential Tenancy Agreement is terminated in accordance with:

•s 92 (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 as the tenant/occupant has intentionally engaged in conduct in relation to the landlord or the landlord that would be reasonably likely to cause the landlord to be intimidated or harassed; and

•s 93 of the Residential Tenancies…

Continue reading Shapkin v Lorenzato

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Shapkin v Lorenzato [2022] NSWCATCD 67
Case
[2022] NSWCATCD 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Shapkin v Lorenzato involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Shapkin, and the defendant, Lorenzato, concerning the renewal of proceedings. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Shapkin sought to renew proceedings against Lorenzato, which had been previously dismissed. The central issue before the court was whether Lorenzato had failed to comply with an order of the Tribunal and whether any other appropriate order should be made.

The court considered whether Lorenzato had contravened a specific order made by the Tribunal. This involved a detailed examination of the order's terms and the evidence presented regarding Lorenzato's compliance. The court also assessed whether any additional orders should be imposed, given the circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the court found that Lorenzato had indeed failed to comply with the Tribunal's order. However, the court determined that dismissing the proceedings was the most appropriate course of action given the specific circumstances.

In its reasoning, the court highlighted that Lorenzato's non-compliance with the Tribunal's order was clear and unambiguous. The court noted that despite the breach, the best interest of justice was served by dismissing the proceedings rather than imposing other sanctions. This decision was based on the specific facts and context of the case, including the nature of the non-compliance and its impact on the proceedings.

The final order of the court was to dismiss the proceedings. This decision effectively brought an end to the legal dispute between the parties, with the court finding that dismissal was the most appropriate resolution given the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The proceedings are dismissed.

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.