Fredriksen v Wongalee Nominees ATF Corney Super Fund [2022] NSWCATAP 23

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Fredriksen v Wongalee Nominees ATF Corney Super Fund [2022] NSWCATAP 23 Hearing dates: 24 January 2022 Date of orders: 31 January 2022 Decision date: 31 January 2022 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member G Burton SC, Senior Member Decision: 1. Leave to appeal refused. 2. Appeal otherwise dismissed. Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – effect of orders in earlier proceedings Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – ss 45(1), 80(2)(b)) Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Pholi v Wearne [2014] NSWCATAP 78 Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Thomas Fredriksen (Appellant) Wongalee Nominees ATF Corney Super Fund (Respondent) Representation: Appellant: self-represented Respondent: G Markovic, principal of managing agent File Number(s): 2021/00335711 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 25 November 2021 Before: G Ellis SC, Senior Member File Number(s): RT 21/48301

REASONS FOR DECISION

Summary 1. The appellant Mr Fredriksen appeals from a decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal (Tribunal) of 25 November 2021 in matter RT 21/48301 (25 November Decision). 2. The appellant had sought the return of his rental bond following his vacation of the residential premises rented by him from the respondent landlord. 3. The Tribunal dismissed Mr Frederiksen's application. 4. In this appeal Mr Frederiksen says that the 25 November Decision was not fair and equitable and against the weight of the evidence. He asks the Appeal Panel to order a new hearing to "review all evidence presented as my case has been unjustly ruled upon". He says that his evidence "will clearly demonstrate that the quoted claims in relation to rental arrears etc are false and incorrect". 5. We do not accept that the 25 November Decision was not fair and equitable or against the weight of the evidence. For the following reasons, we have decided to refuse leave to appeal and to otherwise dismiss the appeal.