Stewart v Wang

[2024] NSWCATCD 70

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Stewart v Wang [2024] NSWCATCD 70

Hearing dates:

21 August 2024

Date of orders:

19 December 2024

Decision date:

19 December 2024

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

B. Koch, General Member

Decision:

(1) The Tribunal directs Rental Bond Services to pay the sum of $1,160.00 to the respondent landlord, out of rental bond numbered T311746-2.

(2) The balance of the bond is to be paid to the applicant tenant.

(3) The balance of the tenant’s application is dismissed.

Catchwords:

LEASES AND TENANCIES – Default and Termination – Abandonment of Premises

LEASES AND TENANCIES – Covenants – Covenant for quiet enjoyment

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW)

Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)

Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Abdel-Messih v Mao [2016] NSWCATAP 223

Abdel-Messih v Marshall [2018] NSWSC 648

Al-Basry v Maharaj [2022] NSWCATCD 9

Elsom & Taylor v Coroneos [2016] NSWCATCD 47

Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22

Lethorn v Wagenheim [2020] NSWCATAP 199

Rathod v Liu [2019] NSWCATAP 80

Taylor v Reilly [2021] NSWCATCD 74

Texts Cited:

Residential Tenancies, Law and Practice, NSW (8th ed, 2022, The Federation Press)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Lawrence Stewart (applicant/tenant)
Yu Wang (respondent/landlord)

Representation:

Mr Stewart in person with Mr Walters (applicant/tenant)

Ms Wang in person
(respondent/landlord)

File Number(s):

2023/00367306 (formerly RT23/50474)

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 10 November 2023, the applicant tenant lodged an application seeking orders in relation to his tenancy at residential premises at Greenwich, NSW (Premises).

2. The proceeding has taken a tortuous path to the final hearing listed on 21 August 2024, evidenced by the length of time that has passed since the application was lodged and the size of the Tribunal’s file.

3. At the hearing on 21 August 2024, the applicant appeared in person but was represented by Mr Walters (pursuant to leave granted by the Tribunal on 8 May 2024). Mr Walters gave evidence subject to an affirmation. The respondent landlord appeared in person and gave evidence subject to an affirmation.

4. At the start of the hearing, the Tribunal sought clarity as to two matters:

1. What in fact are the claims made and orders sought by the parties?

2. What, of the mass of material on the Tribunal’s file, the parties in fact sought to rely upon to advance their claims?

5. As distilled by the parties, there are two issues that were finally pressed at the final hearing:

1. Who is entitled to the bond of $2,000 paid by the tenant at the start of his tenancy at the Premises? The tenant asserts that he is entitled to the return of the whole of the bond. The landlord asserts that she is entitled to $1,160 on account of a break lease fee with the balance to be returned to the tenant (Bond and Break Lease Fee Claim).

2. Is the tenant is entitled to a retrospective rent…