Connell v Petersen [2022] NSWCATCD 122

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Connell v Petersen [2022] NSWCATCD 122 Hearing dates: 2 May 2022, 16 June 2022 Date of orders: 26 August 2022 Decision date: 26 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: S Hanstein, Tribunal Member Decision: (1) The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $2,259 within 14 days of the date of this order. Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Rights and obligations of landlords and tenants — Tenant's right to quiet enjoyment — Landlord's obligation to safeguard belongings left behind Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010 Uncollected Goods Act 1995 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Amy Connell (Applicant) Peter Petersen (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Hunter Tenants' Advice and Advocacy Service (Applicant) Respondent self-represented File Number(s): RT21/51481 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. This is an application by the applicant tenant against the respondent landlord for return of the bond, and for compensation.

Background 1. The respondent did not appear at the hearing on 2 May 2022. The matter was part heard on that day and listed for further hearing on 16 June 2022. 2. Both parties appeared on 16 June 2022, and the respondent sought an adjournment until he was released from custody in November 2022 to enable him to get together evidence to oppose the applicant's case. He claimed that he had previously prepared evidence but had been unable to provide it to the Tribunal and the applicant because his computer was stolen. 3. The applicant opposed the adjournment application, submitting that the proceedings had already been on foot for a considerable time and it would cause her financial and emotional hardship if the matter was not dealt with until November. 4. The application for an adjournment was refused. 5. The Tribunal's guiding principle is that the Tribunal must ensure the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute, and it was not considered to be in accordance with that principle to allow an adjournment of the hearing. The proceedings have been on foot for a significant length of time, and there was not sufficient justification for a further delay until at least November 2022. The respondent did not appear at the first hearing and had submitted no documents in support of his case, notwithstanding that he was not in custody at the relevant times and had some time before going into custody to attempt to provide documentation even if his computer was stolen. It was accepted that the applicant would be prejudiced by further delay in the resolution of the proceedings, particularly until at least November 2022. Taking all of those matters into account, I was not satisfied an adjournment of the hearing should be granted. 6. The hearing then proceeded on 16 June 2022. The respondent participated for part of the hearing, but then left.