George Papazachariou v Michael Antoun [2015] NSWCATAP 157

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: George Papazachariou v Michael Antoun [2015] NSWCATAP 157 Hearing dates: 24 July 2015 Date of orders: 24 July 2015 Decision date: 30 July 2015 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: J Redfern, Principal Member K Rosser, Senior Member Decision: Leave to appeal refused, appeal dismissed Catchwords: APPEAL – residential tenancy agreement – no substantial miscarriage of justice – leave to appeal refused Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 NSW Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Khan v Kang [2014] NSWCATAP 48 Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: George Papazachariou, appellant Michael Antoun, respondent Representation: Nil File Number(s): AP 15/30343 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: N/A Date of Decision: 16 April 2015 Before: C Xuereb, Member File Number(s): RT 15/00393

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. This is an internal appeal from a decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal made on 16 April 2015. The appeal arises out an application made by the appellant, Mr Papazachariou, for orders against his landlord, Mr Michael Antoun. Mr Antoun is the respondent to the appeal and the original application. 2. In summary, Mr Papazachariou alleged breaches of the residential tenancy agreement between him and Mr Antoun in respect of the landlord's obligations to maintain the leased premises in a reasonable state of repair and to provide the tenant with quiet enjoyment. He made complaints about seven matters and also claimed a rent reduction. 3. Orders were made in Mr Papazachariou's favour on a number of the complaints but no rent reduction was ordered. Mr Papazachariou did not succeed on all of his claims and it is in respect of four of these matters that Mr Papazachariou lodged his appeal. 4. Prior to the appeal being listed for hearing, Mr Papazachariou also made an application to the Consumer and Commercial Division to renew the original proceedings. He contends Mr Antoun did not comply with three of the orders made on 16 April 2015. This is in dispute. 5. In an attempt to resolve all issues in dispute between the parties, the renewal proceedings were listed before the Appeal Panel for hearing at the same time as the appeal. The parties were also directed to file and serve an outline of written arguments and any material on which they wished to rely concerning the appeal in accordance with a timetable set by the Appeal Panel. There were no directions made about the exchange of evidence in respect of the renewal proceedings. 6. Mr Papazachariou did not file and serve any further material concerning his appeal and Mr Antoun therefore did not file and serve any material in response. Neither party filed or served material concerning the renewal proceedings. Accordingly, the renewal application did not proceed but the issues in dispute were identified and further directions were made about the preparation of the renewal application for hearing. The renewal application was adjourned to a date to be fixed to be heard by the Consumer and Commercial Division. 7. The appeal proceeded on the basis of the notice of appeal, the material provided by Mr Papazachariou as part of his original application and the written reasons for decision provided by the Tribunal at first instance, which were dated 16 April 2015. The parties also made oral submissions. 8. The appeal was dismissed and orders were made on the day of the hearing. Our reasons, which were reserved, follow.