Yee v Vu - [2003] NSWSC 114

CITATION: Yee v Vu [2003] NSWSC 114

HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 27 February 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 February 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law, Administrative Law List

JUDGMENT OF: Michael Grove J at 1

DECISION: Summons Dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Landlord & Tenant - Appeal from Statutory Tribunal - Limited Jurisdiction - No Case for Intervention by Court

PARTIES :
Ne Yee v Van Tuong Vu

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30114/02

COUNSEL: -
-

SOLICITORS: Appellant: In person
Respondent:: G. Benn

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

MICHAEL GROVE J

Thursday 27 February 2003

30114/02 - NE YEE v VAN TUONG VU
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings were commenced in the Court by a summons filed 20 December 2002 pursuant to leave granted by Barr J. The summons was accompanied by an affidavit of Ne Yee, whom I shall refer to as the appellant. It will be necessary to record formally some of the curial history since 20 December, but I should first indicate that this morning when the matter was listed at 10 am Ms Yee was present in court, although, as the record of proceedings will show, she declined to respond to any questions which I directed to her.

2 She claimed that she was ill, and indeed that was the only communication from her, apart from the production of two documents, which I have described and had noted in the transcript.

3 I also repeat my observations that Ms Yee coughed on multiple occasions, producing thereby an emission from her person. As the record will show, I adjourned at about quarter to eleven and indicated to her that I would resume at 11.30, thus giving her a chance to compose herself. I expressly told her that if she did not return at 11.30 I proposed nevertheless to proceed with the matter.

4 It is now about twenty four minutes to twelve and Ms Yee does not appear. I should record that I have been informed by a sheriff’s officer that Ms Yee has been reported as attending the Registry and demanding that an ambulance be summoned for her. Whether this occurred or not I do not know.

5 The reason that I propose to proceed is that the present proceedings are in any event hopeless and I should record my reasons for reaching that conclusion.

6 There has been no formal tendering of evidence before the Court. But for present purposes I advert to the affidavit filed on 20 December 2002 already referred to and certain material appearing in and annexed to the affidavit of Van Tuong Vu, whom I shall refer to as the respondent. That affidavit was filed in court on 5 February 2003.

7 Mr Benn, Solicitor, has appeared today for the respondent, as he has on previous occasions. He has, in accordance with the rules, filed an appropriate notice of appearance.

8 This litigation…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Yee v Vu and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NSWSC 114
Decision Date: 27 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Yee v Vu, the matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved a tenant, Yee, who had sought relief from the Residential Tenancies Authority against their landlord, Vu. The tribunal had dismissed Yee's application, and Yee appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the tribunal's decision.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to review the merits of Yee's claim that the property was not fit for habitation, and if the tribunal's decision was so unreasonable as to justify intervention by the court. The court was required to determine if there were any jurisdictional errors or if the tribunal had applied an incorrect legal principle.

The Supreme Court found that the tribunal had limited jurisdiction to review the merits of Yee's claim. The court held that the tribunal had not made any jurisdictional error in its decision. The tribunal had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had not misapplied any legal principles. The court found that the tribunal's decision was not so unreasonable as to warrant intervention by the court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal's decision was upheld.

Orders