Ground 5 'The decision was not fair and equitable.'
21The Tenants have provided various sets of written submissions, the contents of which we have considered.
22We deal with these grounds in the Notice of Appeal together as each of them (as explained below) requires leave. None of these grounds other than Ground 3 is said to identify a question of law. For the reasons which follow Ground 3 does not raise an error of law. For completeness we note in relation to ground 1, that the complaint is not that there is no probative evidence at all, but rather, for reasons explained at length in submissions, that the evidence which exists for findings seems insufficient or not compelling to the applicant. Of course once there is some evidence for a finding, any error is one of fact not law: see Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 at 155-156 (see TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Castel Electronics Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 83 at [82]). In Azzopardi, Glass JA with whom Samuels JA concurred, said that none of the following assertions of inadequacy amount to errors of law, namely where a finding:
'is perverse, that it is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that it is against the evidence and the weight of the evidence, that it ignores the probative force of the evidence which is all one way...'
23We deal with the key issues in relation to each of the three categories of claim in relation to the bond.
Landlord's Claim for pool service
24It will be recalled that the reasons below dealt with this claim as follows:
Pool service - $554
The invoice tendered by the landlords is for various servicing to bring a swimming pool up to the standard required for swimming. The email referred to above, compiled by the incoming tenants, claims 'the pools [sic] is green but also looks like there has been a sewer overflow that ran down all the deck steps (lots of toilet paper looking material). To put it mildly we are greatly dissatisfied.' The photographs tendered by the landlord show algae apparent in the pool. This part of the claim will be allowed.
Adequacy of Reasons
25There are complaints about the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Tribunal pursuant to s 62 of the Act. By s 62(3) those reasons were required to set out:
(a) the findings on material questions of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based,
(b) the Tribunal's understanding of the applicable law,
(c) the reasoning processes that lead the Tribunal to the conclusions it made.
26It is important to recall what was said by the Court of Appeal in Amaca Pty Ltd v Tullipan [2014] NSWCA 269 at [14], namely:
It is not necessary to set out the general principles regarding review for inadequacy of reasoning, which were summarised in Resource Pacific at [42]-[57]. As noted by Mahoney JA in Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 at 273, "it will ordinarily be sufficient if ... by his reasons the judge apprises the parties of the broad outline and constituent facts of the reasoning on which he has acted." As counsel for the respondent noted, adopting the language of McHugh JA in Soulemezis at 281, "great care needs to be taken that dissatisfaction with the finding of fact does not mislead the Court into holding that the learned judge has failed to give his reasons for his finding." Finally, in Soulemezis at 282, McHugh JA stated: "What is decisive is that his Honour's judgment reveals the ground for, although not the detailed reasoning in support of, his finding of fact. But that is enough where no appeal lies against the finding of fact. Accordingly there was no failure to give reasons sufficient to constitute an error of law.
27We consider the reasons provided on this issue are evidently sufficient to comply with s 62, bearing in mind the warning of the Court of Appeal just referred to. It follows that there is no error of law in relation to the adequacy of reasons.