Noorishoja v Ayla Holdings Pty Ltd

Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW (2020) 103 NSWLR 479; [2020] NSWCA 165

Allsopp v The Owners-Strata Plan No 6006 [2022] NSWCATAP 365

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; [1990] HCA 33

Azzopardi v Tasman QEB (1985) 4 NSWLR 139

BHP Billiton Ltd v Dunning [2013] NSWCA 421

Bilanenko v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAP 279

Bimson, Roads & Maritime Services v Damorange Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 734

Boreland v Brewis [2024] NSWCATAP 140

Butto v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2025] NSWCATAP 111

Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17

Donohoe v Alburario [2025] NSWSC 9

Halil v NSW Land and Housing Corporation (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1646

Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1

Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390; [2010] HCA 32

Lin v Westerman [2025] NSWCATAP 319

Mendonca v Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWCA 84

New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Orr (2019) 100 NSWLR 578; [2019] NSWCA 231

Pholi v Wearne [2014] NSWCATAP 78

Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82; [2000] HCA 57

Resource Pacific Pty Ltd v Wilkinson [2013] NSWCA 33

Ryan v BKB Motor Vehicle Repairs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 39

TNT Building Trades Pty Ltd v Baker [2023] NSWCATAP 178

Unique Commercial Property Group Limited v Cusumano [2024] NSWCATAP 204

Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54; [1987] HCA 25

Whear v Kids on Hayes Street Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 123

1. This is an internal appeal under s 80 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) from a decision of the Tribunal on 2 September 2025 in proceedings under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (RT Act).
2. In this decision, any reference to "the tenant" is a reference to the appellant; and any reference to "the respondent" is a reference to the landlord.
3. At the appeal hearing on 16 December 2025 the tenant appeared in person with an interpreter; and the landlord was represented by its licensed agent, Mr Mustafa.
4. On 2 September 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the tenant's applications in Case Numbers 2024/00272091 and 2024/00414017. Other proceedings by the tenant in Case Number 2025/00106537 were adjourned for a final hearing.
5. The tenant appeals the dismissal of proceedings in Case Number 2024/00272091 and 2024/00414017.

1. Case Number 2024/00272091 was filed with the Tribunal on 23 July 2025. The tenant sought the following orders:

(1) A rent reduction under s 44(1)(b) of the RT Act of 85% of the rent payable.

(2) An order for repairs under s 65 of the RT Act.

(3) Compensation in the amount of $3,000 under s 187(1) of the RT Act.

(4) An order that the residential tenancy agreement be amended and the ingoing condition report be amended.

(5) Reimbursement of an invoice of $1,100 dated 22 July 2024 from Nave Plumbing. On 25 June 2024, the tenant had engaged Mr Zobeiri of Nave Plumbing to conduct an inspection of the premises. Mr Zobeiri had prepared a report dated 25 June 2024 that identified various plumbing issues, including a blocked floor waste in the bathroom; a faulty hot water system; and blockage of laundry pipe.

1. In the part of the application "why are you applying to NCAT" the tenant makes various assertions, including the landlord's representations about the condition of the property; "breaches, enjoyment, and happiness, safety misleading, false information;" requesting a bond of "more than 20 days"; the premises did not have a smoke alarm; the shower waste pipe was blocked; and the hot water system was faulty.
2. Case Number 2024/00414017 was filed with the Tribunal on 6 November 2024. The orders sought were that landlord be "informed the real estate not following act;" an order for repairs; an order for compensation; and that a notice to terminate be declared retaliatory under s 115 of the RT Act.
3. In the part of the application "why are you applying to NCAT" the tenant states:

"Case Number 2024/00272091

1. Not providing their documents as order made on 15 August

2. Terminated the agreement 2 times even made complaints to NCAT which has been dismissed (Case Number 2024/00330988)

3. Agents refusing to get the keys back or be responsible for the matter.

4. Keep breaching RTA by coming over without notice or making several inspection time on weekends or public holidays.

Breaking into the house without permission and using different or unknown people as the property manager which never informed me sections 17 (sic).

5. Bad naming or giving shame on my face in front of neighbours.

And I got termination notice again Case Number 2024/00412090."

1. On 6 December 2024, in Case Number 2024/00272091, the Tribunal made orders setting the matter down for hearing. Orders were made for the parties to file and serve documentary evidence. An order was made that the tenant was granted leave to amend the proceedings to seek the following orders:

(1) The landlord amend the ingoing inspection report;

(2) Repairs to the premises in respect of hot water system; oven; rangehood; bathroom exhaust fan; plumbing works; electrical works and smoke alarm.

(3) Rent reduction of 85% from the commencement of the tenancy until repairs are completed.

(4) Compensation of $15,000.

(5) Landlord reimburse the tenant $2,000 for repair works the tenant asserts the landlord approved and the tenant paid for; and reimbursement of plumbing report.

(6) Amendment of the rent ledger to credit the tenant $5,000.

1. On 18 December 2024, in Case Number 2024/00414017 the Tribunal identified the tenant's claim as compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment (ss 50 and 187(1)(d) of the RT Act).
2. On 23 May 2025, the Tribunal made orders and procedural directions setting Case Number 2024/00414017 down for hearing with the same directions regarding the lodging and serving of documentary evidence as Case Number 2024/00272091.

1. The written reasons of the Tribunal identify that the various proceedings were listed for hearing on 27 August 2025. The tenant appeared. Mr Mustafa, agent for the landlord, appeared.
2. The reasons refer to the "second tenant" Mr Khormabadi, appearing. At [4] the Tribunal states that Mr Khormabadi's role "is touched on in the reasons made on 23 May 2025". The Tribunal stated that Mr Khormabadi was listed as a tenant in the tenancy agreement, but "never occupied the premises" and "has no effective role" in the claims by Mr Noorishoja.
3. At [3] the Tribunal identifies the tenant's claims as "Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4". Claim 1 has "nothing to do with today". Claim 4 (i.e. Case Number 2025/00106537) is to be "set for final hearing at a future date".
4. Claims 2 and 3 are the matters deal with in the reasons. Claim 2 is Case Number 2024/00272091. Claim 3 is Case Number 2024/00414017.
5. At [5] the Tribunal found that the parties had entered into a written residential tenancy agreement in June 2024 for a fixed period of 12 months. The tenancy ended in "early 2025" after an order of the Tribunal terminating the tenancy for rent arrears.
6. At [6]-[25] the Tribunal dealt with "Claim 2" (i.e. Case Number 2024/00272091).
7. The Tribunal noted that very soon after the commencement of the tenancy the tenant emailed the landlord's agent identifying 11 items that required repair. There was an email exchange on 12 June 2024, where the agent responded to complaints by the tenant, and stated that either items did not require repair, or had not been provided as part of the residential tenancy agreement. The agent stated on 12 June 2024 that "keys are handed over today and rent will be payable today". The tenant responded that the rent should not commence until repairs had been conducted.
8. At [12] the Tribunal noted that in about July 2024 the tenant complained to NSW Fair Trading, and the agent wrote to NSW Fair Trading on 10 July 2024 responding to the tenant's complaint. At [13] the Tribunal referred to SMS exchanges between the tenant and the agent, but did not set them out.
9. At [14] the Tribunal stated that "a peculiar event" occurred in about October 2024 , when the tenant "entered into a residential tenancy agreement for other premises". The Tribunal stated that the reason for this was "unexplained." The Tribunal stated that it was "uncontroversial" the tenant had made "a number of claims over different premises." The agent submitted that the tenant would enter into residential tenancy agreements and immediately make "claims." The tenant denied this.
10. At [15], the Tribunal referred to an email exchange between the tenant and the landlord's agent in December 2024 where the agent sought access to the premises for an inspection, and the tenant replied that he would not give an access time "...till I get what I (am) after".
11. At [19], the Tribunal found that, from the commencement of the tenancy, the tenant "failed to give access to the landlord in accordance with his duties as to access which appear in the Part".
12. At [20], the Tribunal found the tenant had intentionally prevented the landlord from fulfilling the landlord's duty to keep and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair (ss 63 and 65 of the RT Act) and that the landlord had "at all times been ready, willing and able" to perform its duty. However, the tenant's failure to give access had prevented the landlord from performance of its duty.
13. At [21], the Tribunal dismissed the tenant's claims for a rent reduction under s 44(1)(b) of the RT Act and the tenant's claim for compensation.
14. At [22], the Tribunal dismissed the tenant's claim for compensation of $2,000 for the cost of obtaining a report from a plumber; rubbish removal and electrical work, on the basis the Tribunal did not accept there had been an agreement between the tenant and the landlord for reimbursement, and the work was not urgent repairs for which the tenant was entitled to reimbursement (s 65(1)(b) of the RT Act).
15. At [24] the Tribunal declined to deal with an alleged discrepancy of $5,000 in the rent ledger, because there were other proceedings between the parties involving a dispute about rent arrears where that issue was to be determined.
16. At [26]-[33] the Tribunal deal with the tenant's claim for compensation due to alleged loss of quiet enjoyment. That claim was based on emails from the landlord's agent and lawyer in 2024; and an allegation that the agent broke into to the premises. The Tribunal found the tenant had "not made out" the allegation of breach of quiet enjoyment under s 50 of the RT Act.

1. The tenant lodged a Notice of Appeal on 15 September 2026. The Notice of Appeal has been lodged within the applicable time period under r 25(4)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) (NCAT Rules).
2. The Notice of Appeal identifies denial of procedural fairness as an error of law. However, there is no clear articulation identifying the substance of the alleged denial of procedural fairness. Leave to appeal is sought on the basis that (a) the decision is not fair and equitable; (b) the decision is against the weight of evidence; and (c) there is significant new evidence not reasonably available at the hearing that is now available.
3. The Notice of Appeal attaches a number of emails of the tenant. Most of those are addressed to the agent, and make various assertions including that the agent is not duly authorised to act for the landlord and the landlord is not the correct legal entity.
4. On 15 October 2025 , the Appeal Panel made procedural directions setting the appeal down for hearing. The timetable for the parties written submissions; documents; and any sound recording or transcript of the hearing relied upon was extended during the course of the appeal proceedings.
5. On 3 October 2025, the landlord lodged a Reply to Appeal. The landlord denied the grounds of appeal. The landlord asserted the tenant was a "vexatious litigant" who had launched multiple unsuccessful Tribunal proceedings.
6. On 28 November 2025, the tenant lodged appeal documents and submissions.
7. On 15 December 2025, the landlord lodged appeal documents and submissions.
8. The appeal was listed for hearing on 16 December 2025. The tenant appeared with a Farsi interpreter. Mr Mustafa, agent, appeared for the landlord.

1. Internal appeals may be made as of right on a question of law, and otherwise with leave (that is, the permission) of the Appeal Panel: s 80 (2) of the NCAT Act.
2. An appeal is not simply an opportunity for a dissatisfied or aggrieved party to re-argue the case they put at first instance: Ryan v BKB Motor Vehicle Repairs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 39 at [10].
3. What is an error on a question of law was extensively discussed by the Appeal Panel in Unique Commercial Property Group Limited v Cusumano [2024] NSWCATAP 204 (Cusumano) at [25]-[40]. An error on a question of law (if established) is an appeal made as of right and does not require leave. A mixed error of fact and law (if established) requires leave to appeal.
4. In Cusumano at [33], the Appeal Panel stated the categories of questions of law are "not closed"; and at [37] stated:

"[37] What constitutes a question of law is vexed and context dependent in the sense that the distinction between matters of fact and of law may turn on the circumstances in which the question arises: Targeted Property Investments Pty Ltd v Look Up Technologies Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 416 at [33(4)], citing Thomas and Naaz [2023] NSWCA 40 at [52] and Da Costa v The Queen [1968] HCA 51; (1968) 118 CLR 186 at 194; [1968] HCA 51."

1. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this decision to set out all the examples of an error on a question of law that were discussed in Cusumano.
2. However, an error on a question of law may arise in the circumstances including the following:

(1) Failure to provide procedural fairness at the hearing (Donohoe v Alburario [2025] NSWSC 9 at [36]- [39] Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1 at [60]; Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82; [2000] HCA 57 at [41] (Gleeson CJ), [142] (Kirby J) and [170] (Hayne J));

(2) No jurisdictional power to make an order (Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82; [2000] HCA 57; at [163] (Hayne J);

(3) A constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, in the sense of a failure to consider a "substantial, clearly articulated argument relying upon established facts" that was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine (see e.g. Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW (2020) 103 NSWLR 479; [2020] NSWCA 165 at [8]- [12] and [413]; Resource Pacific Pty Ltd v Wilkinson [2013] NSWCA 33 at [1] and [9]).

(4) Applying the wrong legal principle (in isolation to the factual findings) which materially affected the outcome (Bimson, Roads & Maritime Services v Damorange Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 734 at [38]- [53] (Bimson)). However, the wrong application of the correct legal principles to the facts is an error of mixed fact and law for which leave to appeal is required under s 80(2)(b) of the NCAT Act (TNT Building Trades Pty Ltd v Baker [2023] NSWCATAP 178 at [42]- [43] and the authorities cited therein).

(5) Making a factual finding where there was no evidence at all to substantiate the factual finding: Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390; [2010] HCA 32 at [91] per Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ. However, a wrong finding of fact does not amount to an error of law: Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54; [1987] HCA 25 per Brennan J; Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; [1990] HCA 33 at [83]-[89]. An erroneous finding of fact, including the drawing of an inference or the erroneous failure to find a fact or failure to draw an inference, which is perverse in the sense that it is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, is not an error of law: Azzopardi v Tasman QEB (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 at 155 per Glass JA.

1. The circumstances in which the Appeal Panel may grant leave to appeal from decisions made in the Consumer and Commercial Division are limited to those set out in Cl. 12(1)(a)-(c) of Sch. 4 of the NCAT Act. In such cases, the Appeal Panel must be satisfied that the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice on the basis that:

(a) The decision of the Tribunal under appeal was not fair and equitable; or

(b) The decision of the Tribunal under appeal was against the weight of evidence; or

(c) Significant new evidence has arisen (being evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the proceedings under appeal were being dealt with).

1. In Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 (Collins v Urban), the Appeal Panel stated at [76] that a substantial miscarriage of justice for the purposes of Cl. 12(1) of Sch. 4 may have been suffered where:

"[76]... there was a "significant possibility" or a "chance which was fairly open" that a different and more favourable result would have been achieved for the appellant had the relevant circumstance in para (a) or (b) not occurred or if the fresh evidence under para (c) had been before the Tribunal at first instance."

1. Even if the appellant establishes that it may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice in the sense explained above, the Appeal Panel retains discretion whether to grant leave under s 80(2) of the NCAT Act. The appellant must demonstrate something more than the Tribunal was arguably wrong (BHP Billiton Ltd v Dunning [2013] NSWCA 421 at [19]; Pholi v Wearne [2014] NSWCATAP 78 at [32]).
2. The discretion to grant leave to appeal was discussed by the Appeal Panel in Collins v Urban at [82]-[84]. It is usually appropriate to grant leave only in those matters that involve issues of principle; questions of general public importance; an injustice which is reasonably clear, in the sense of going beyond what is merely arguable; or the Tribunal has gone about the fact finding process in such an unorthodox manner, or in such a way that it was likely to produce an unfair result, it would be in the interests of justice for it to be reviewed.

1. The oral submissions of the tenant reflected the written submissions lodged on 28 November 2025. The tenant did not provide a transcript of the Tribunal hearing in the tenant's documents and submissions. Failure to provide a transcript as well as a sound recording may result in an appellant failing to establish an error on a question of law, or otherwise that leave to appeal should be granted: Whear v Kids on Hayes Street Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 123 at [28]- [33]; Aboss v Hafeez [2022] NSWCATAP 345 at [30]- [31]; Butto v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2025] NSWCATAP 111 at [42]- [43]; Allsopp v The Owners-Strata Plan No 6006 [2022] NSWCATAP 365 at [34]- [35]; Bilanenko v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAP 279 at [14]- [25].
2. The tenant's assertions were broad. In substance, they raised disagreement with the decision, although there was reference to a denial of procedural fairness. The oral submissions of the tenant at the Appeal Panel hearing were discursive and unfocussed.
3. The Appeal Panel is not required to undertake a partisan analysis of lengthy, unstructured assertions and misconceptions with a view to ensuring that a self-represented litigant has not missed some arguable point: Mendonca v Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWCA 84 at [21].
4. Accordingly, the Appeal Panel will endeavour to summarise the matters raised by the tenant, and put them into the context of the relevant legal issues for consideration under s 80(1) of the NCAT Act. However, due to the overlapping and repetitive nature of a number of submissions, it is difficult to capture their substance. To reflect Chen J's observation in Halil v NSW Land and Housing Corporation (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1646 at [63], the Appeal Panel has endeavoured to fairly and justly identify the nub of what was sought to be argued.
5. The tenant divided his submissions in to "Annexure A" (which were submissions attached to the Notice of Appeal where he took issue with various paragraphs of the Tribunal decision) and "Annexure B" (which were new submissions, but a number of those submissions overlapped with the submissions attached to the Notice of Appeal).
6. The matters identified in the tenant's submissions are summarised as follows:

1. The tenant asserts that documents issued by the landlord's agent, including a Notice of Termination were "unauthorised" and without legal authority because they were issued by the current agent rather than the former agent. That does not raise an error on a question of law. Having considered the documents of the landlord in the appeal it has no substance. The agent of the landlord was duly authorised at all relevant times. There is nothing unorthodox about a landlord changing managing agents during the duration of a residential tenancy agreement.

1. The tenant asserts that the residential tenancy agreement contains "errors" which are "directly relevant to its legal validity." The purported "errors" are not clearly identified, nor do they constitute an error on a question of law in the Tribunal decision.

1. The tenant makes broad and vague allegations of "false and misleading" conduct by the agent in respect of the "second tenant." Those assertions do not identify an error on a question of law, nor do they appear to have any substance.

"Ingoing Condition, Key Handover Defects and Start of Tenancy Issues"

1. The tenant claims the ingoing inspection report was inaccurate; keys and access devices were not handed over; and parts of the premises were inaccessible. Again, there is an assertion that there was misrepresentation. No specific evidence that was before the Tribunal and factual findings by the Tribunal are identified. The broad assertions, at most, raise factual matters that require leave to appeal, and do not identify any error on a question of law.

Alleged Breach of "Minimum Standards" and "Mandatory Disclosure Obligations Under s 27 of the RT Act"

1. Again, there are broad and unsubstantiated submissions about the conduct of the landlord, without any identification of how there is an error on a question of law in the decision, or otherwise that leave to appeal should be granted from the decision.

1. The tenant provided ASIC records of the landlord. Tenant referred to a "connection" with a firm of Solicitors; and that the landlord on the residential tenancy agreement was not the correct landlord. From the information contained in the tenant's documents in the appeal and the landlord's documents in the appeal, that submission is misconceived and without substance. Again, no error on a question of law is identified, nor is any basis for leave to appeal being granted identified.

Unauthorised Involvement of Mr Mahmood Kargar Acting as Landlord

1. The tenant asserts that he had dealings with Mr Kargar on behalf of the landlord, and that, by reason of the ASIC search, Mr Kargar had no authority to act on behalf of the landlord. Again, the submissions do not identify any error on a question of law, or basis for granting leave to appeal from the Tribunal decision.

Invalid Termination Notices Issued by Former Agent

1. The tenant complains that the Notices of Termination issued by the former agent were invalid. There is nothing to indicate that the former agent was not duly authorised by the landlord to issue Notices of Termination. No error on a question of law, or otherwise that leave to appeal should be granted in respect of the decision of the Tribunal, is established.
2. As discussed previously, in the Notice of Grounds of Appeal, and in "Annexure A" of the tenant's submissions, further areas of disagreement with the decision are identified. It is sufficient to distil those matters into the following:

1. Throughout the submissions of the tenant, there are references to "denial of procedural fairness." However, "denial of procedural fairness" must be established, it is not sufficient to merely asset it. Nor does a submission that merely identifies disagreement with the decision converted into an error on a question of law because it is cloaked with the phrase "denial of procedural fairness."
2. The legal principles pertaining to denial of procedural fairness have been considered by the Appeal Panel on many occasions. One of the many authorities that has summarised the principles is Boreland v Brewis [2024] NSWCATAP 140, where the Appeal Panel stated at [59]-[62]:

"[59] In determining proceedings before it, the Tribunal is under a duty to afford procedural fairness to the parties. Procedural fairness, or the duty to act fairly, applies to courts and tribunals which are empowered to determine matters affecting the rights and interests of a person. Procedural fairness requires that the Tribunal give the parties a fair hearing, and that it be free from actual or apprehended bias. The term "procedural fairness" is synonymous with natural justice (the latter term is used in s 38(2) of the NCAT Act).

[60] It is well established that the Tribunal must conduct a hearing that gives procedural fairness to both parties, even taking into account the less formal nature of Tribunal proceedings (s 38(4) and subs (5) of the NCAT Act). What is necessary and appropriate to ensure a fair hearing depends on the particular facts and statutory context, rules of procedural fairness being flexible and adaptable so as to be appropriate in a given case so as to avoid practical injustice (SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152; [2006] HCA 63 at [26] and [29]; Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 241 CLR 252; [2010] HCA 23 at [19]- [20]; Re: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 6 at [37]- [38]).

[61] The appellant raised a denial of procedural fairness as a ground of appeal, noting that, in respect of a self-represented non-legally trained party, the Appeal Panel must consider the substance of what is raised as the grounds of appeal (see e.g. Cominos v Di Rico [2016] NSWCATAP 5 at [13]). Whether there has been a breach of procedural fairness raises a question of law: see e.g. Kudrynski at [52]; YHY v YHZ [2024] NSWCATAP 117.

[62] Where there has been a breach of the requirement to afford the appellant procedural fairness, the question arises whether that error was material to the Tribunal's decision. A breach of procedural fairness will constitute jurisdictional error, if the error is material to the Tribunal's decision: Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 276 CLR 80; [2022] HCA 26 (Nathanson) at [1], [33] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ). Materiality is established if the procedural unfairness deprived the appellant of a realistic possibility of a different outcome on the application lodged in the Consumer and Commercial Division."

1. In this matter, no denial of procedural fairness is established. The tenant has failed to identify and demonstrate that he was not given a fair hearing.

1. The tenant's criticisms of the decision do not establish that the Tribunal failure to consider a substantial, clearly articulated argument relying upon established facts" that was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine.

1. No application of the wrong legal principle is established.

1. Inadequacy of reasons can constitute an error on a question of law if their inadequacy leads to the conclusion that there was an error that falls into a category of error on a question of law, such as constructive failure to exercises jurisdiction. Inadequate reasons many also form the basis of granting leave to appeal in appropriate circumstances: Lin v Westerman [2025] NSWCATAP 319 at [55]- [58].
2. The reasons in this matter could have been expressed in more detail. They are economical. However, they meet the "minimum characteristics" principles discussed in New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Orr (2019) 100 NSWLR 578; [2019] NSWCA 231 at [65]- [77].

1. The Appeal Panel has considered the substance of the legal issues raised by the tenant in the appeal in the context of error on a question of law. None have been established.

1. All of the other issues raised by the tenant are issue of mixed fact and law that require leave to appeal.
2. The tenant has failed to establish leave to appeal should be granted, applying the principles set out in Collins v Urban. The matters identified and complained of by the tenant demonstrate nothing more than decision dissatisfaction and attempt to reagitate the original dispute. There is no basis for the appeal grounds to be treated as a new hearing under s 80(3) of the NCAT Act; nor is leave to appeal granted.

1. The submissions of the landlord state the landlord seeks legal costs in respect of the agent acting for the landlord in the appeal. The Appeal Panel has made procedural directions to deal with the costs application.

(3) Any costs application is to be made and dealt with as follows:

(a) Costs applicant to lodge with the Appeal Registry and serve on the costs respondent written costs submissions (not exceeding 3 pages) and documents in support of the costs application by 7 days from the date of this decision.

(b) Costs respondent to lodge with the Appeal Registry and serve on the costs application written costs submissions (not exceeding 3 pages) and documents in opposition to the costs application by 14 days from the date of this decision.

(c) Costs applicant to lodge with the Appeal Registry and serve on the costs respondent written costs submissions in reply (not exceeding 2 pages) by 21 days from the date of this decision.

(d) The parties costs submissions are to include whether they consent to a hearing on the issue of costs being dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) and if not, why not.

(e) Either party may apply in writing to the Appeal Registry with a copy sent to the other party to vary the timetable for costs submissions, with any such application to be made by no later than the date of the applicable timetable obligation.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.