Yan v Yan; Yan v Yan - [2023] NSWCATCD 143

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yan v Yan; Yan v Yan [2023] NSWCATCD 143
Hearing dates: 5 September 2023
Date of orders: 30 October 2023
Decision date: 30 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: J Alder, General Member
Decision:

RT 23/23449 – Tenants’ application

1. The landlord, CHENYANG YAN, UNIT 3327 65 Tumbalong Boulevarde SYDNEY NSW 2000 Australia, is to pay the tenant, ZIYU YAN and Jiaming Lin and Liang Wang, 7 Kent Road MASCOT NSW 2020 Australia, the sum of $2,210.00 on or before 06-Nov-2023.

Reasons :

• Under s 187(1)(d) compensation for breach of s 63 - $2,210.00

2. The Rental Bond Services is directed to pay the tenant, ZIYU YAN and Jiaming Lin and Liang Wang, 7 Kent Road MASCOT NSW 2020 Australia, the whole bond plus interest of Rental Bond number T558673-1.

NOTE: All rental bond payments are made by electronic transfer to a nominated bank account. If you have not already provided bank account details to NSW Fair Trading please contact 13 32 20 or email bondclaims@finance.nsw.gov.au

If you do not receive the money payable to you as directed by this order, you can get a certified copy of this money order from NCAT. You can then register it with the Local or District Court to enforce the order. For more information about enforcing money orders, visit the NCAT website
Note: Failure to pay the money owed by this order in the time directed can result in enforcement action being taken in the Local or District Court. If this happens additional costs and interest can be added to the amount payable.

RT 23/29452 – Landlord’s application

The application is 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:
LEASES AND TENANCIES – breach of agreement – termination by Tribunal – breach sufficient to justify termination in the circumstances of the case – abandonment - break fee – rental bond – failure to lodge bond – landlord’s obligation to maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair – compensation

Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), ss 21, 29, 33(2), 37, 43, 45, 51(3), 63(1), 65(3)(b), 65(3A), 81(4)(d), 103, 106, 107, 162(3), 166, 175, 187(1)(d)
Residential Tenancy Regulations 2019 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, ss 36(1), 38(4)
Cases Cited:
Abdel-Messih v Marshall[2018] NSWSC 648
Panico v Crompton & Jennings [2015] NSWCATAP 110

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Ziyu Yan, Liang Wang and Jiaming Lin - applicants/cross respondents (tenants)
Chenyang Yan – respondent/cross claimant (landlord)
Representation: The applicants/cross-respondents were represented by Mr Ziyu Yan
The respondent/cross claimant was self represented and represented by Mr Clay (Linran) Sun, Senior Property Manager of IPan Realty

File Number(s): RT 23/23449, RT 23/29452
Publication restriction: None

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

The parties entered into a standard form residential tenancy agreement (RTA) on 20 February 2023…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Yan v Yan; Yan v Yan

Details

AGLC: Yan v Yan; Yan v Yan [2023] NSWCATCD 143
Case: [2023] NSWCATCD 143
Decision Date: 30 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Yan v Yan; Yan v Yan, the dispute arose between the landlord, Chenyang Yan, and the tenants, Ziyu Yan, Jiaming Lin, and Liang Wang. The tenants brought a claim against the landlord regarding the management and maintenance of the property, while the landlord sought to terminate the lease and recover compensation for the tenants' breach. The case was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The tenants argued that the landlord failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair and sought compensation for the breach of their tenancy agreement. Additionally, the tenants claimed that the landlord had not lodged their rental bond with the NSW Fair Trading, and they sought the return of their bond plus interest. The landlord, on the other hand, sought to terminate the lease due to the tenants' alleged abandonment of the property and sought compensation for the breach of the lease agreement.

The Tribunal considered whether the breach of the tenancy agreement was sufficient to justify termination and whether the landlord was obligated to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The Tribunal also examined whether the landlord had failed to lodge the tenants' rental bond and whether the tenants were entitled to compensation under section 187(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. The Tribunal found that the tenants had breached the agreement by abandoning the property, but this was not sufficient to justify termination in the circumstances of the case. However, the Tribunal did find that the landlord was obligated to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and the tenants were entitled to compensation for the breach of this obligation. The Tribunal also found that the landlord had failed to lodge the tenants' rental bond, and the tenants were entitled to the return of their bond plus interest.

The Tribunal ordered that the landlord pay the tenants $2,210.00 in compensation for the breach of the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal also directed Rental Bond Services to pay the tenants the whole bond plus interest of Rental Bond number T558673-1. The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application for termination and compensation. Failure to comply with the Tribunal's orders may result in enforcement action being taken in the Local or District Court, with additional costs and interest added to the amount payable.

Orders

Orders of the court

RT 23/23449 – Tenants’ application

1. The landlord, CHENYANG YAN, UNIT 3327 65 Tumbalong Boulevarde SYDNEY NSW 2000 Australia, is to pay the tenant, ZIYU YAN and Jiaming Lin and Liang Wang, 7 Kent Road MASCOT NSW 2020 Australia, the sum of $2,210.00 on or before 06-Nov-2023.

Reasons :

• Under s 187(1)(d) compensation for breach of s 63 - $2,210.00

2. The Rental Bond Services is directed to pay the tenant, ZIYU YAN and Jiaming Lin and Liang Wang, 7 Kent Road MASCOT NSW 2020 Australia, the whole bond plus interest of Rental Bond number T558673-1.

NOTE: All rental bond payments are made by electronic transfer to a nominated bank account. If you have not already provided bank account details to NSW Fair Trading please contact 13 32 20 or email bondclaims@finance.nsw.gov.au

If you do not receive the money payable to you as directed by this order, you can get a certified copy of this money order from NCAT. You can then register it with the Local or District Court to enforce the order. For more information about enforcing money orders, visit the NCAT website www.ncat.nsw.gov.au.

Note: Failure to pay the money owed by this order in the time directed can result in enforcement action being taken in the Local or District Court. If this happens additional costs and interest can be added to the amount payable.

RT 23/29452 – Landlord’s application

The application is 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Yan v Yan; Yan v Yan [2023] NSWCATCD 143
Hearing dates:	5 September 2023
Date of orders:	30 October 2023
Decision date:	30 October 2023
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	J Alder, General Member
Decision:	RT 23/23449 – Tenants’ application 1. The landlord, CHENYANG YAN, UNIT 3327 65 Tumbalong Boulevarde SYDNEY NSW 2000 Australia, is to pay the tenant, ZIYU YAN and Jiaming Lin and Liang Wang, 7 Kent Road MASCOT NSW 2020 Australia, the sum of $2,210.00 on or before 06-Nov-2023. Reasons : • Under s 187(1)(d) compensation for breach of s 63 - $2,210.00 2. The Rental Bond Services is directed to pay the tenant, ZIYU YAN and Jiaming Lin and Liang Wang, 7 Kent Road MASCOT NSW 2020 Australia, the whole bond plus interest of Rental Bond number T558673-1. NOTE: All rental bond payments are made by electronic transfer to a nominated bank account. If you have not already provided bank account details to NSW Fair Trading please contact 13 32 20 or email bondclaims@finance.nsw.gov.au If you do not receive the money payable to you as directed by this order, you can get a certified copy of this money order from NCAT. You can then register it with the Local or District Court to enforce the order. For more information about enforcing money orders, visit the NCAT website Note: Failure to pay the money owed by this order in the time directed can result in enforcement action being taken in the Local or District Court. If this happens additional costs and interest can be added to the amount payable. RT 23/29452 – Landlord’s application The application is 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:	LEASES AND TENANCIES – breach of agreement – termination by Tribunal – breach sufficient to justify termination in the circumstances of the case – abandonment - break fee – rental bond – failure to lodge bond – landlord’s obligation to maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair – compensation
Legislation Cited:	Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), ss 21, 29, 33(2), 37, 43, 45, 51(3), 63(1), 65(3)(b), 65(3A), 81(4)(d), 103, 106, 107, 162(3), 166, 175, 187(1)(d) Residential Tenancy Regulations 2019 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, ss 36(1), 38(4)
Cases Cited:	Abdel-Messih v Marshall[2018] NSWSC 648 Panico v Crompton & Jennings [2015] NSWCATAP 110
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Ziyu Yan, Liang Wang and Jiaming Lin - applicants/cross respondents (tenants) Chenyang Yan – respondent/cross claimant (landlord)
Representation:	The applicants/cross-respondents were represented by Mr Ziyu Yan The respondent/cross claimant was self represented and represented by Mr Clay (Linran) Sun, Senior Property Manager of IPan Realty
File Number(s):	RT 23/23449, RT 23/29452
Publication restriction:	None