Jenkins v Barrack Point Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 72

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Jenkins v Barrack Point Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATCD 72 Hearing dates: 19 November 2020; 4 May 2021 Date of orders: 02 June 2021 Decision date: 02 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G Bassett, General Member Decision: 1 The respondent, Barrack Point Holdings Pty Ltd, is to pay the applicant, Lee Jenkins, the sum of $2,845.80 immediately. Catchwords: RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES — Interference with right to sell home — Compensation — Sub-letting residential site Legislation Cited: Residential (Land Lease) Communities Act 2013 (NSW) Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Lee Jenkins (Applicant) Barrack Point Holdings Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Solicitor: Lough & Wells Lawyers (Applicant) File Number(s): RC 20/30192 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application and procedural history 1. By the time of the hearing this matter had been reduced to a claim by the applicant, Mr Jenkins, for compensation due to alleged interference by the community operator in the sale of a resident's home, being that of his father. A claim by the community operator and this cross-claim had been part-heard at hearing on 19 November 2020. After that part-heard hearing the community operator withdrew its claim (RC 20/22889). 2. At the end of the hearing on 19 November 2020 the cross-examination of Mr Jenkins was still on foot. That cross-examination was continued on 4 May 2021, though limited to the cross-claim for compensation. In addition, evidence from a person who gave an expert report on property valuation was taken and tested under cross-examination. That evidence related to letting value of the residential premises. In addition to the written submissions and other documentary evidence of the parties, at the final hearing on 4 May 2021 oral submissions were taken from each of the representatives as to the orders sought. 3. In the closing submissions of Mr Jenkins' legal representative, Mr Frater, the relief sought did not turn on any diminution in value of the sale price of the home due to alleged interference with the sale.