Hoang v Duong [2021] NSWCATAP 404

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hoang v Duong [2021] NSWCATAP 404 Hearing dates: 29 November 2021 Date of orders: 15 December 2021 Decision date: 15 December 2021 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: The Hon Cowdroy AO QC ADCJ, Principal Member G K Burton SC, Senior Member Decision: (1) Leave to bring the appeal is refused. (2) The appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES – Retail leases – security deposit and breaches – no issue of principle Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Hai Chan Hoang (Appellant) Thi Hong Nga Duong (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Appellant (Self-Represented) Respondent (Self-Represented) File Number(s): 2021/00268024 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 8 September 2021 Before: G Blake AM SC, Senior Member File Number(s): COM 21/14094

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. By notice of appeal dated 10 September 2021 the appellant appeals a decision of the Tribunal delivered on 8 September 2021 in proceedings COM 21/14094. The claim of the appellant related to a retail lease entered into by the appellant as lessor and the respondent as lessee. 2. By lease registered number AJ766883G made on 20 August 2015 the appellant leased premises described as folio identifier 1/546212 being the ground floor shop, at [address supplied] Belmore ("the premises") for a period of five years at an agreed rental. The lease was signed by each party and was duly registered. 3. At the termination of the lease on 17 September 2020 the respondent stated that all keys were returned to the property together with remote controls for a shutter which was installed by the appellant during the course of the lease. 4. On 2 October 2020 the agent contacted the respondent and informed her that in order to recover her bond the respondent was required to take certain action which was completed by the respondent on 8 October 2020. However, the respondent maintained that, after she surrendered possession of the premises, the landlord (appellant) claimed that there were additional expenses and therefore the bond could not be paid. 5. At the date of the surrender of the lease the respondent acknowledged that there was unpaid rent owing of $1382.95 and a water usage charge of $7.10 which the respondent instructed the agent to deduct from the bond. 6. The appellant claimed that the premises were left in unsatisfactory condition. The appellant provided a tax invoice from a repairer claiming an amount of $2200 which the appellant said was the cost of the repairs, as follows: 1. Filled all hold (sic – holes) on the wall and painting $1700. 2. Supply and install vanity and back room need toilet $300. 3. Clean the moisture on the left hand side of the wall $100. 4. Replace three broken tiles are leftist hand side $100. 1. The managing agent of the appellant attended the premises on 17 September 2020 with the appellant. Apart from the outstanding rental and water usage, the appellant did not suggest that any further issue existed. No damage was reported. On 17 September 2020 the appellant's agent sent an email to the respondent stating that, once certain remote controls were returned and the outstanding rent and water usage paid, the bond could be released. 2. The remote controls had in fact been returned and were not an issue. However, on 22 October 2020 the NSW Small-Business Commission advised the respondent that the appellant was claiming the full amount of the bond.