Lioe v Britney Kraus Real Estate Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAP 258

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Lioe v Britney Kraus Real Estate Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAP 258 Hearing dates: 26 November 2020 Date of orders: 8 December 2020 Decision date: 08 December 2020 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: S Westgarth, Deputy President S Goodman SC, Senior Member Decision: Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: APPEAL - no error of law - leave to appeal - claim against agent, Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (NSW) Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Fair Trading Act 1987 NSW Property and Stock Agent Regulation 2014 NSW Cases Cited: None cited Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Yan (Albert) Setianan Lioe (Appellant) Britney Kraus Real Estate Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Appellant(Self Represented with interpreter) Respondent (Self Represented) File Number(s): AP 20/40596 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer & Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 21 July 2020 Before: S Sutherland, General Member File Number(s): COM 19/55518 and COM 20/13531

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Consumer & Commercial Division of the Tribunal published on the 21 July 2020 (which we will refer to as the Decision). The Tribunal was exercising its jurisdiction under the Fair Trading Act 1987, the Property & Stock Agent Regulation 2014 and the Australian Consumer Law (NSW). The Appellant had brought an action against the Respondent alleging breaches by the Respondent of its obligations to the Appellant under an exclusive management agency agreement dated 14 March 2019 (the Agency Agreement). By the Agency Agreement the Appellant constituted the Respondent his agent for the purposes of managing a property owned by the Appellant which had been leased to tenants under a residential tenancy agreement. 2. As the Decision records, the Appellant alleged that the Respondent had breached the terms of the Agency Agreement and had acted outside the authority provided to the agent under that agreement in the context of undertaking repairs to the leased property, ordering replacement goods and, in addition, that there had been the loss of a prospective tenant due to the misleading and deceptive conduct of the Respondent. 3. The Decision records that there were eight separate claims against the Respondent, one of which was withdrawn. Each of the remaining seven claims was dismissed and the Appellant's application was dismissed.