Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Simsab Pty Ltd v Shaw [2025] NSWCATCD 50 Hearing dates: 7 April 2025 Date of orders: 23 June 2025 Decision date: 23 June 2025 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: R Glover, General Member Decision: (1) By consent, the Applicant has leave to amend the application to include a claim for rent payable during the term of the tenancy.
(2) The Respondent is to pay the Applicant the sum of $4,800.
(3) The balance of the Applicant’s claim is dismissed.
(4) The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has already received the sum of $4,800 through payments made by the Respondent ($2,400) and having received half of the rental bond ($2,400). Those amounts are to be credited against the money order with the effect that no further payments are required to be made by the Respondent.
Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Termination — By tenant — Abandonment of premises — Rent and outgoings — Payment of rent — Rights and obligations of landlords and tenants
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Abdel-Messiv v Marshall [2017] NSWCATAP 136
Al-Basry v Maharaj [2022] NSWCATCD 9
Bhandari v Laming [2015] NSWCATAP 224
Cowling v Tran; Tran v Cowling [2022] NSWCATCD 128
Darren and Julie Patterson v David Dawson [2015] NSWCATAP 31
David v Langman [2021] NSWCATAP 360
Duffey v Tuntevski; Tuntevski v Duffey [2020] NSWCATCD 24
Imran v Zhang [2023] NSWCATD 159
Lethorn v Wagenheim [2020] NSWCATAP 199
Li v Bonestroo [2022] NSWCATAP 2
Moffatt v Muscat [2023] NSWCATCD 13
Panttalone v Jacobe [2021] NSWCATAP 418
Rathod v Liu [2019] NSWCATAP 80 at [60]
Rizk & Juma v Lai & Lai; Lai & Lai v Rizk & Juma [2023] NSWCATCD 137
Roberts v NSW Aboriginal Housing Office [2017] NSWCATAP 9
Rodrigo v Shang (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 101
Seymour v Wu [2021] NSWCATAP 289
Srisivalingam v O’Leary [2023] NSWCATAP 40
Stewart v Wang [2024] NSWCATCD 70
Texts Cited: Anforth & Ors, Residential Tenancies, Law and Practice, NSW (8th ed, 2022, The Federation Press)
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Applicant: Simsab Pty Ltd
Respondent: Haydn Eric ShawRepresentation: Applicant: Mr Stamatatos (Agent)
Respondent: In person
File Number(s): 2024/00377010 Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
These reasons concern a claim by the Applicant for the payment of a lease break fee in the sum of $4,800. The Respondent resists that claim.
The Hearing
-
These proceedings were listed for final hearing on 7 April 2025.
-
The Applicant appeared at the hearing by its managing agent, who was granted leave to appear. The Respondent appeared in person.
-
At the hearing, the Applicant relied on a bundle of documents, which included:
a summary of events;
a tenancy application form;
the residential tenancy agreement;
an ingoing condition report;
a tenancy ledger;
correspondence;
notice of termination; and
photographs.
Continue reading Simsab Pty Ltd v Shaw
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Simsab Pty Ltd v Shaw [2025] NSWCATCD 50
- Case
- [2025] NSWCATCD 50
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the tenant had abandoned the premises and whether the landlord was entitled to claim for unpaid rent during the period of abandonment. The Tribunal also needed to consider the issue of costs, specifically whether the landlord was entitled to claim for costs associated with the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the tenant had abandoned the premises, but it was not satisfied that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to mitigate its loss. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for unpaid rent during the period of abandonment. However, the Tribunal did find that the landlord was entitled to claim for unpaid rent for the period before the tenant abandoned the premises. The Tribunal also dismissed the landlord's claim for costs, finding that the landlord had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim.
The Tribunal ordered that the landlord was entitled to receive $4,800 from the tenant, being the unpaid rent for the period before the tenant abandoned the premises. The Tribunal also noted that the landlord had already received $4,800 from the tenant, which was to be credited against the money order. As a result, no further payments were required to be made by the tenant. The balance of the landlord's claim was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) By consent, the Applicant has leave to amend the application to include a claim for rent payable during the term of the tenancy.
(2) The Respondent is to pay the Applicant the sum of $4,800.
(3) The balance of the Applicant’s claim is dismissed.
(4) The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has already received the sum of $4,800 through payments made by the Respondent ($2,400) and having received half of the rental bond ($2,400). Those amounts are to be credited against the money order with the effect that no further payments are required to be made by the Respondent.
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.