Richardson v Sader [2022] NSWCATCD 14

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Richardson v Sader [2022] NSWCATCD 14 Hearing dates: 27 October 2021; 26 November 2021 Date of orders: 27 January 2022 Decision date: 27 January 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G. Bassett, General Member Decision: (1) The application is dismissed. Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Quiet enjoyment — Compensation CIVIL PROCEDURE— Res judicata — Issue estoppel — Whether same cause of action Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Cases Cited: Gleeson v The Owners – Strata Plan No 48226 [2018] NSWCATAP 204 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Alexander Richardson (Applicant) Tony Sader (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (Self-represented) P Edmunds (Respondent) File Number(s): RT 21/22817 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 25 May 2021 the tenant applied for orders under section 187 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 ('the Act") that he be paid an amount of money of $1,889.85 and compensation of $5,464.28 by the landlord. 2. In the written reasons for the application the tenant stated it was made as a "counter-claim" to the landlord seeking to retain the bond at the end of the tenancy. Those reasons alleged Mr Sader and his agent had engaged in deceptive, unconscionable, intimidatory and threatening" actions and behaviours. The tenant said he sought "rectification costs associated with the necessitation of my move, as well as compensatory cost for loss of quiet enjoyment". 3. The application first came before the Tribunal on 6 September 2021. The matter was adjourned. On that date the Tribunal record shows the bond claim of the landlord had been resolved but this application of the tenant remained to be heard. Both parties appeared at that hearing. 4. At the beginning of the hearing on 27 October 2021 the tenant was asked to specify with more precision the particular parts of the Act the landlord was alleged to have breached. He said he sought: 1. $15,000.00 compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment (section 50 of the Act) 2. costs associated with end of lease move 3. rent reduction under section 44 of the Act. 1. On 27 October 2021 the matter was part-heard. The hearing had insufficient time due to the tenant raising in his closing submission that he had been denied procedural fairness during the hearing. An adjournment was necessary to allow the tenant to finish those submissions on procedural fairness and to also make any further submissions on the substantive issues subject of the claim. 2. The matter came before the Tribunal again on 26 November 2021. The tenant made no further submissions on the issue of procedural fairness. In relation to the substantive claim, he said he left it to the Tribunal's discretion to determine if orders made in a prior claim (see paragraphs 15 to 16 below) by the tenant also finalised the question of breach of quiet enjoyment and payment of money he raised in this application. In further closing submissions the landlord submitted again that this application was subject of res judicata due to the consent orders made in a related claim on 16 April 2021. 3. The tenancy terminated some 13 days later and the tenant vacated on 29 April 2021. Consequently, this application was lodged nearly 4 weeks after the end of the tenancy.