Abdel- Messih v Mahfoudi & Rouanet [2017] NSWCATCD 10

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Abdel- Messih v Mahfoudi & Rouanet [2017] NSWCATCD 10 Hearing dates: 12 January 2017 Decision date: 06 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: M Eftimiou, General Member Decision: 1. The application is dismissed. Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010 Cases Cited: Kenny v Killalea [2015] NSWCTAP 66 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bishoy Abdel-Messih (applicant) Ryhad Mahfoud Mahfoudi and Julien Andre Pierre Rouanet (respondents) File Number(s): RT 16/51625 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. By application filed on 26 November 2016, the applicant sought orders pursuant to section 187(1)(c)(h) of the Act. The applicant stated as the reasons for seeking the Orders, that the respondents were refusing to pay the remaining bond and fortnightly rent. 2. On 9 December 2016 the application was adjourned at the request of the applicant. Leave was granted to amend the claim to seek the following orders: 1. An order pursuant to section 106 that the respondents had abandoned the property. 2. An order pursuant to section 107 that the respondents pay a break lease fee of $3000.00. 3. An order that the respondents pay $300 for replacement security swipe key. 1. The Tribunal ordered the applicant to serve upon the respondents a copy of the residential tenancy agreement together with evidence from the owners corporation of loss in regards to the security keys and any other evidence that he sought to rely upon prior to the next hearing. 2. The Tribunal ordered that the respondents are to be served by substituted service by sending a notice of hearing to their email addresses. 3. On 13 December 2016 a Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties advising them that the matter was set down for Conciliation and Hearing /Group List on 12 January 2017 at 1.15pm. 4. On 12 December 2016 the Tribunal received email correspondence from the respondents setting out some of the issues that they had experienced with the premises and with the applicant. The respondents were advised to seek independent legal advice about their rights and options. 5. The Tribunal received an email from the respondent, Julien Roouanet, on 12 January 2017 advising that his employer would not allow him to leave work early to attend the hearing and requesting that the matter be stood down the list until 2.30pm to allow him to attend. 6. The matter was stood down the list until 3pm. There was no appearance by the respondents. 7. The Tribunal determined that the matter should proceed to hearing. There was no reasonable explanation for the respondents' failure to attend by 3pm. There was no evidence before the Tribunal as to why Ms Mahfoundi had not attended. An email was received late on 14 January 2017 from the respondent advising that he was not able to attend the hearing as his employer would not give him leave. 8. The applicant sought to rely on a submission handed to the Tribunal at the hearing. The applicant was sworn and the Tribunal accepted the submission as the applicant's sworn evidence in relation to the dispute. 9. In addition the applicant sought to rely on the following documents: 1. Residential Tenancy Agreement; 2. Weekly Cleaning Roster; 3. TICA Privacy Disclosure Form; 4. Email Correspondence between the parties; 5. Receipt of payment of money; 6. Condition Report; and 7. Notice to remedy breach (Form 11).